# Question for FT Competitors



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Do you think that Field Trial Judging needs improvement?

If so,

1) What are the three biggest problems that you see in the tests that are set or the judging of those tests?

2) What one thing do you think would most improve FT judging?


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> Do you think that Field Trial Judging needs improvement?
> 
> If so,
> 
> ...


I am not a circuit guy like you but in my limited exposure and conversation with those that are, I hear the following criticisms

1. tests that are more like training scenarios, or tests that are set up because thats what they saw their pro set up earlier

2. dogs disappearing from sight of the handler

3. people who have never produced/handled/trained an AA dog judging an AA stake

in response to your second question...those of you on the circuit know who you like running under and those that you would rather not if given your preference....

How about some sort of feedback system, like eBay, where the ACTUAL competitors of that particular stake rate the judges performance and that performance rating would be made visible when deciding to enter a particular trial, along with comments as to why the rating was given..this way you would actually be able to decide as FT committee if you really wanted to invite a particular judge despite the fact that they may be an 8 pt judge or not...

IMHO there are also qualified judges that are available but are not considered because they no longer run a dog on the circuit..in the dwindling pool of quality judges, I think its a resource that should be considered

all of the above are my $.02 and not a reflection of anyone elses opinion


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

I think the interpretation of the Standards tend to get skewed at times. Not sure how you could change that though.

Length instead of placement.

Can't define a 3rd but do like Bon's idea on the feedback somehow.


----------



## John Shoffner (Jan 27, 2009)

Clubs need to invest in developing quality judges for the future by matching up newer enthusiastic talented people willing to give of their time with best in class judges that can mentor them on setting up good quality tests and efficiently running them. 

I think the apprenticeship approach to working with quality well-regarded AA judges at the major stakes and lots of experience judging minor stakes is critical to stepping up as a well-qualified and credible AA judge. 

John


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> 2. Tests unfair to stylish dogs.
> 3. Unqualified judges. (Bon's #3)


Can you offer more detail on points 2 and 3?


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

I've seen some flyer placements that gives an advantage to the dog whose bird lands where intended and major disadvantage to dogs whose flyer landed somewhere else. Jeez, big news, flyers, especially hen pheasants, don't all go where the judge thinks they should.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I could be wrong, but I don't think Howard was directing his comments to you, Walt


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Blackjack Retrievers - NC said:


> Clubs need to invest in developing quality judges for the future by matching up newer enthusiastic talented people willing to give of their time with best in class judges that can mentor them on setting up good quality tests and efficiently running them.
> 
> I think the apprenticeship approach to working with quality well-regarded AA judges at the major stakes and lots of experience judging minor stakes is critical to stepping up as a well-qualified and credible AA judge.
> 
> John


Does your club do anything directed specifically at developing new judges?


----------



## trog (Apr 25, 2004)

upcoming trial 117 dogs in open and 3 days to get it done
what do you do?
our dogs today are so good a 40 acre field is no longer big enough 
the tests needed take so much time and need to eliminate so many dogs in the first series
Is it the judging or the quality of the dogs/large entries/time factors that are more important
been at this for 40 years and think this is more of a problem than poor judging - I know that I would not want to judge the 117 dog open in GA this coming weekend
trog


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

3 problems:

1) Time Management***: Judges place themselves(handlers and the club) in a bind by not correctly estimating dogs/hour and trial mechanics. Series get carried over to the next day, dogs running at dark..... can effect callbacks and placements.

2)Training concept marks are not always good measure of marking ability.

3)Adherence to the cumulative effect of minor and moderate faults(especially in all-age stakes).


To improve some of the time problems the FTC could take a more proactive position on set up day and trial day with the judges. Explaining TIME expectations and limitations (not test or bird placement).

Tim


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

this idea may be a little off the wall and out of the box, but what if the FT game had regular judges like the NFL, but not quite like a MLB umpire...basically a professional trained judge..they could be trained and certified and a club would have to use at least one per stake. I would guess that there are people in the country who would like nothing better than to travel around the country and judge FT's as a profession


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

The thing that would have the most positive affect on the quality of the trial would be to reduce the size of the entries. It would give more judges more opportunnities to judge the field vice reduce the field. That doesn't specifically address the quality of judging but it could increase the potential to improve judging. HPW


----------



## drbobsd (Feb 21, 2004)

My feeling is anywhere my dog has run perfectly or near perfect we have never been dropped after any series. We just need to put together 4 perfect series then we win.

I have seen dogs brought along through a trial that had questionable work. But feel that is none of my business as I can't see all the dogs and all the work that judges see.

I feel some of the not so great tests are a crap shoot and all dogs and handlers are rolling dice.

Is there a portable lie detector test that we could answer one question? Did we judge fair and to best of our ability?


----------



## Mike W. (Apr 22, 2008)

1) I would like to see more tests with excellent bird placement, where the dogs take themselves out rather than the judges taking them out.

2) I would like to see tougher first series, so the numbers can be more manageable through the blinds. Too many dogs getting carried to the blinds = pencil whipping nit-picking blind judging. Since marking is supposed to carry greater weighting, let's seperate the outstanding marking jobs early.

3) I would like to see tougher last series where they winners clearly seperate themselves, rather than 4 placements and 10 jams.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

junfan68 said:


> 1) I would like to see more tests with excellent bird placement, where the dogs take themselves out rather than the judges taking them out.


And how do you improve bird placement?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

trog said:


> Is it the judging or the quality of the dogs/large entries/time factors that are more important been at this for 40 years and think this is more of a problem than poor judging -
> 
> I know that I would not want to judge the 117 dog open in GA this coming weekend
> trog


If you take trial size out of the mix, have your found the judging to be uniformly good?


----------



## Kyle B (May 5, 2005)

trog said:


> upcoming trial 117 dogs in open and 3 days to get it done
> what do you do?
> our dogs today are so good a 40 acre field is no longer big enough
> the tests needed take so much time and need to eliminate so many dogs in the first series
> ...


Laughing and crying!


----------



## Mike W. (Apr 22, 2008)

> And how do you improve bird placement?


I know my statement was broad, and your question is one that is hard to generalize, but here goes:

I would try to put the birds someplace that the dogs don't want to go, and place them in such a way as to minimize wind giving them away which all too often makes alot of the work look the same. And I would really try to think through how to use the other birds to really set up that money bird.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> Do you think that Field Trial Judging needs improvement?
> 
> If so,
> 
> ...


to your 1st question:

1) It seems to be a recent, popular notion that dogs should eliminate themselves, i.e., judges are unwilling or unable to judge the work objectively and reflect judgement of marking skills in their callbacks.
2) This leads to tests that are intented to eliminate dogs as opposed to demonstrate & reward good marking skills. These tests don't so much test marking, rather put a premium on lines run - tight, technical, training set-ups as opposed to marking tests.
3) Judges use blinds (2nd & 3rd series) to achieve a high number of the dogs dropped from the field, making handling skills rather than marking skills priority. And these type blinds are usually momentum breakers, techinical in nature with goal posts, keyholes, mandatory factors, etc that give a distinct advantage to older or slower dogs & are pass/fail based soley on 1 or 2 key elements in the line to the blind.

to your 2nd question:

Apprenticeships, seminars, etc have little retained learning & benefit for inexperienced handlers who cannot relate to the information provided. The best solution is for judges to spend time handling their dogs in training, studying how dogs respond to various set-ups, bird to bird influences, terrain, wind, scent, etc. IMO this is much more important than whether a particular handler has a certain number of AA placements under his belt. What is needed is judges who understand what dogs do & why, which only comes with critical understanding from handling dogs. I do believe this learning process can be expedited by training with experienced trainers/handlers who are willing answer questions on the fly.

JMO, of course........


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Kyle B said:


> Laughing and crying!


Ah but we have hen pheasants to help us out.....


----------



## Kyle B (May 5, 2005)

Granddaddy said:


> Ah but we have hen pheasants to help us out.....


Says the AM judge who gets to start on Friday!


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

Granddaddy said:


> to your 1st question:
> 
> 1) It seems to be a recent, popular notion that dogs should eliminate themselves, i.e., judges are unwilling or unable to judge the work objectively and reflect judgement of marking skills in their callbacks.
> 2) This leads to tests that are intented to eliminate dogs as opposed to demonstrate & reward good marking skills. These tests don't so much test marking, rather put a premium on lines run - tight, technical, training set-ups as opposed to marking tests.
> ...


I want to add that I think this is a pretty thoughful and accurate comment.


----------



## Becky Mills (Jun 6, 2004)

trog said:


> upcoming trial 117 dogs in open and 3 days to get it done
> what do you do?
> I would not want to judge the 117 dog open in GA this coming weekend
> trog


Jeepers. What kind of idiot would agree to judge a 117 dog open anyway?
Oh, oops, wait, now who was it, let me think a minute.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

junfan68 said:


> I would try to put the birds someplace that the dogs don't want to go, and place them in such a way as to minimize wind giving them away which all too often makes alot of the work look the same. And I would really try to think through how to use the other birds to really set up that money bird.


And what does one do to accomplish this?


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> to your 1st question:
> 
> 1) *It seems to be a recent, popular notion that dogs should eliminate themselves, i.e., judges are unwilling or unable to judge the work objectively and reflect judgement of marking skills in their callbacks.*
> 2) This leads to tests that are intented to eliminate dogs as opposed to demonstrate & reward good marking skills. These tests don't so much test marking, rather put a premium on lines run - tight, technical, training set-ups as opposed to marking tests.
> ...


Thanks for typing all of this Dave... saved me a lot of work!  I wouldn't agree more! I see the bolded section to be the heart of the difficulties I've seen in trials lately.

There also seems to be this notion that the only way to separte dogs and bring down the numbers in the first series is to put 4 birds on the ground... when there are people in the sport who don't have to do this to get answers... Bath, Ruffalo, "Sasse"... to name a few..


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I think that the word elimination is misused in this context. That is, the word "elimination" is not well defined and thereby leads to confusion and misunderstanding.

Not all tests that eliminate dogs from competition are elimination tests. 

If I am judging an All Age Stake, I want to set up a marking test that is sufficiently hard that a significant portion of the dogs pickup or handle or have monster hunts on one, two, or three birds. If I am competing in an All Age Stake, I want the same thing.

Obviously, those dogs that pickup are eliminated.
In all likelihood, those dogs that handle will be eliminated (not called back).
Depending on the number of dogs, and the relative work of the dogs, a monster hunt on one bird, or a big hunt on two or more birds may be eliminated (not called back), also.

To my mind, elimination in this fashion is not wrong, so long as some fundamentals are present. For example,

1) Dogs can see the guns
2) Dogs can see the birds
3) Dogs are given sufficient time to locate guns and see birds
4) Dogs cannot wind one bird when sent on line to another bird
5) Dogs are not distracted while either watching the birds fall or while running to the fall by movement of the guns
(If I spent more time, I could come up with more)

As a contestant and as a judge, I want a hard, challenging test that gets the juices following. I want a test where only a handful of dogs are doing really well on the test.

I guess what I am saying is that I don't mind tests that eliminate dogs as long as the tests are not contrived for the sole or primary purpose of eliminating dogs.

Another way to put it is that not all tests that eliminate dogs are "elimination tests."


----------



## davewolfe (Mar 22, 2010)

everyone wants to go after newer judges,I think the judges that have been around awhile can be more bias and set in their ways. I don't know how to get better judges, but making it harder to be one may not be the answer. It's harder to be a h/t judge but the quality of judging is not necessarily better. I do know it is harder to find judges for h/t.


----------



## counciloak (Mar 26, 2008)

1) Inconsistent call backs, or unexpected placements. For example if you have 2 or 3 dogs and find out that you lost your best dog, yet your weaker dog gets called back or places higher than your other dog at the end of the trial.

2) Tests that are set up to eliminate dogs as opposed to challenge their abilities. Ted summed it up perfectly in reply #30.

3) ???

Next question:

What one thing would improve Field Trial judging?

many possibilities have been brought up, but the one that I least favor is the feedback system. I see nothing good coming from that. If a judge is scored with a 72%, I doubt that he is going to think that needs to improve and try harder next time! I also doubt that that judge would ever judge for the person who scored him. Enough said on that.

The other Idea which is now a rule for new judges is the apprenticeship assignment. I think that it is a good idea, but it is not a long term resolution for each new judge. I've had apprentices in hunt tests, so what I focus on has nothing to do with the rule book or when or why to retire a gunner etc. All of those aspects should be assumed. After that weekend they are free to use their own judgement. I do focus on making sure that at the end of the day that he has a clear system of taking notes to reflect accurately what the dog did. I don't care if they use my system or my co judges system or their own as long as they can look at a 6 inch line on their paper for dog #1 and compare it to dog #60 accurately. This is just one example of the benefits of apprenticing. The first time we do anything it is awkward. 

Here is my humble opinion. We often see quotes by trainers who we respect, but we don't see quotes by Judges who we respect. I'd like to obligate each National judge to write a short article about judging, to be published in the Field Trial News, or in a start up news letter. I'd like to read about whatever topic that they choose to talk about. It could be time management, bird placement, or even how they like to set up the line from where they judge. The topics could be endless, but just one page would be a benefit to us all. I would enjoy reading every one of them.


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

> 1)
> What one thing would improve Field Trial judging?
> 
> many possibilities have been brought up, but the one that I least favor is the feedback system. I see nothing good coming from that. If a judge is scored with a 72%, I doubt that he is going to think that needs to improve and try harder next time! I also doubt that that judge would ever judge for the person who scored him. Enough said on that.


*Agreed!*



> Here is my humble opinion. We often see quotes by trainers who we respect, but we don't see quotes by Judges who we respect. I'd like to obligate each National judge to write a short article about judging, to be published in the Field Trial News, or in a start up news letter. I'd like to read about whatever topic that they choose to talk about. It could be time management, bird placement, or even how they like to set up the line from where they judge. The topics could be endless, but just one page would be a benefit to us all. I would enjoy reading every one of them


What a fabulous idea! 
Is RFTN listening?


----------



## bcollins (Nov 14, 2007)

This is a thread where imput was asked for so i am going to say the one thing that bothers me more than anything. Keep in mind i mainly run the derby stakes. By no means am i saying i know more than you or any of that and this happens on a regular basis because i have seen it. The derby stake is very competive and most weekends you have to step on 8 birds to win. I have seen judges turn thier back to the working dog while it is working. IMO this cant happen cause all it take is to miss one little thing and the wrong dog could get a gift.It's not the judges job to be hanging up birds. I know judges give up thieir time to do this and i really do appreciate this but if your going to judge do the full job and observe all dogs closely from point a to point b.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Granddaddy said:


> to your 1st question:
> 
> *1) It seems to be a recent, popular notion that dogs should eliminate themselves, i.e., judges are unwilling or unable to judge the work objectively and reflect judgement of marking skills in their callbacks.*
> 2) This leads to tests that are intented to eliminate dogs as opposed to demonstrate & reward good marking skills. These tests don't so much test marking, rather put a premium on lines run - tight, technical, training set-ups as opposed to marking tests.
> ...


Excellent points!!

Good judges come from hours behind the wheel.......

Hours and hours of setting up marking tests, running your dog on them, and then realizing you and your dog didn't get anything out of it.

Hours and hours of training your high rolling dog to stop on a dime and cast through a hoop.

Hours and hours of instruction from experienced handlers and trainers *willing to teach you how to do these things*.........

To those unhappy with the current state of judging.......take a newbie with you and teach them to run and train their dog. This is knowledge that cannot ever be learned in a book or on a DVD. Teach them 'WHY' you are running a particular mark and what you are looking for the dog to do before they run it.

If you use a pro, ask questions when you train with them. Why are we running this particular set of marks. Run your own dog and ask what is expected of each training setup BEFORE you run. Then ask what you could improve on AFTER you run the setup.

Dog training is an art that we must more readily pass along in the best interest of the sport.


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

Setting a test at the right level for the field of dogs on that day seems to be a problem in my circuit. Sometimes too easy for one series and sometimes too hard for another series. The discussion about elimination is relevant for the too hard tests. I agree with Ted that I like a challenging test both as a judge and a handler. I would rather see the philosophy of hard test and generous callbacks than easy test and pencilled out dogs. 

However, I think there is a different philosophy between 1. the judges who set up a tough test to find the best dogs and know how to challenge the field to allow those dogs to rise and 2. The judges who set up a tough test to get rid of dogs using some an extreme set-up. Often such test make the really good dogs look bad-something wrong there. Maybe in the latter cases they are just not applying Ted`s fundamentals because we see that often. But I think that the judge who is elimination oriented ie seeking weaknesses rather than strengths is more prone to ignore fundamentals. 

Perhaps the line between the two is too fine but I have been trying to emphasize the difference since my first judging workshop over 20 years ago. I`m finding it a challenge.


----------



## Robert Dozier (Mar 24, 2009)

You have got to start getting folks exposure in judging the lower stakes (Derby and Q). I will always be grateful to Tarheel for giving me the experience to judge the Q up there. They placed we with a very experienced judge and it was one of the best learning periods of my relatively new time in FTs. I learned a great deal—I mean a GREAT deal that weekend!!! (Even how to deal with my training buddy who didn’t get called back to the 3rd!)

That exposure and learning opprtunity at that point in my time in this sport was tremendous. It made me go work even harder on the finer points of this incredible sport --the things that do not appear in any of my books or videos!!

Clubs need to have a working list of newer folks in the sport that are actually running their dogs and get them exposed to judging very early on.


----------



## Keith Farmer (Feb 8, 2003)

> And how do you improve bird placement?



Ted you have asked this question a few times with no answers. Here is a suggestion:

I have judged a few events (invitational money events) and I have clients that judge. When setting up marking tests and blind tests I spent many hours going through each mark running various dogs on the marks to establish proper bird location and to obtain the desired results (good marking dogs are rewarded and not-so-good marking dogs are not rewarded).

I have urged my clients to use available setup dogs in setting up their FT tests and they have done so with great results. 

No matter the experience level there are factors that we all miss...the dogs will reveal those factors and as a judge those factors can be utilized to aid in setup.


My biggest gripe with FT setups today is that true marking dogs are not always represented in the placements. Good handling dogs perhaps, since so much emphasis is placed on blinds, but not necessarily the best *marking* dogs.


.


----------



## Brian Cockfield (Jun 4, 2003)

I would be happy just to see every judge follow the rule book. (question 2) I don't have much to add for question 1, most things have been covered. I especially like Grandaddy's response in reference to the technical blinds and giving advantages to older, slower dogs. This seems to be very common in AA stakes now.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I see a lot of pontificating going on on this thread. Read my sig line;-)

john


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> Apprenticeships, seminars, etc have little retained learning & benefit for inexperienced handlers who cannot relate to the information provided. The best solution is for judges to spend time handling their dogs in training, studying how dogs respond to various set-ups, bird to bird influences, terrain, wind, scent, etc. IMO this is much more important than whether a particular handler has a certain number of AA placements under his belt. What is needed is judges who understand what dogs do & why, which only comes with critical understanding from handling dogs. I do believe this learning process can be expedited by training with experienced trainers/handlers who are willing answer questions on the fly.


If you adopt this standard, I suspect that you will contract, not expand the pool of judges ...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

TBell said:


> Good judges come from hours behind the wheel.......
> 
> Hours and hours of setting up marking tests, running your dog on them, and then realizing you and your dog didn't get anything out of it.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree, but as with David, I think that the issue is that if you apply this standard to an individual's qualification to judge, that you will probably be shrinking, not expanding the judging pool


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Keith Farmer said:


> Ted you have asked this question a few times with no answers.
> 
> .


Ok, but other than trial and error, how does one learn the fundamentals of bird placement?

If someone asked you to list the basic principles of bird placement, what would you say?


----------



## signgirl (Jun 4, 2006)

generally......

I am on the Executive of a local club. Every year, getting qualified and diverse judges to commit to a whole weekend the following year is a huge struggle. My initial wish list is seldom what we ultimately end up with. Fresh blood is so important. Where is it? Why aren't folks willing to travel, miss a weekend of trialing their dogs, sit outside in all weather, do their best and then get second guessed by the weekend critics? . Oops...maybe that is why.

This is what I think needs to happen long before people consider judging and I think everyone should consider judging or some other club involvement to be their duty.

If training with a pro, ask about setups, bird placement, factors...drive them crazy with your questions. Ask why each dog reacted as it did; find out how and why different elements affected dogs differently. 

Don't sit in the parking lot at trials. Sit in the gallery, watch dogs & handlers. Think about what, where and why. note: this is not something that needs to be done out loud because there will already be one of those in the crowd.

If part of a training group, insist on a turn creating the setups. Make a plan as to what you want to accomplish that day and if unsure, put your heads together. I have learned more doing the training group scenarios than I ever could judging or apprenticing occasionally.
Be critical and talk to the group about what did and didn't work and why. You need to be analytical and honest with yourself and others. 

lastly...........if you are directionally challenged, get a compass and figure out where North and South are. In that same vein, train with back lit guns because they will be coming to a trial near you.


----------



## Keith Farmer (Feb 8, 2003)

> If someone asked you to list the basic principles of bird placement, what would you say?


*Here is the negative aspect of what I instruct my clients who judge:*

1) Don't throw marks that reward poorly trained dogs. Dogs that will cheat, dogs that will bail out early on water marks, dogs that will not enter cover, *dogs that will not fight factors*.

2) Don't throw marks that only reward dogs that "go straight". One of the common phrases I hear is "just get 'em under the arc and they will find the bird." Perhaps that will work but is it true marking?

*Here is what I instruct my clients in terms of the positive:*

1) Use the terrain you are given to establish factors.

2) Use the wind as a factor

3) Use cover, logs, brush piles, ditches (safe ones), trees, en-route as factors 

That is good advice but without the trial and error one is still in doubt until the test dog is run. What I abhor is seeing a test dog mangle up the test and the judges say "line 'em up". What are they looking for?

Properly done the test dog should reveal judging moments and judges should have the nads enough to judge.






.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

A good place for a bird in in one marking configuration may not be so good, or even be a poor one in another marking configuration, and retiring one of the other birds may also either positively or negatively impact the difficulty of that particular mark. 
The order in which the birds are shot, the number of shots that are fired, whether the bird is a flier or a dead bird, their species and their sex, also have an impact.
Good bird placement is like "Porn", when one that has the knack looks out over a field they, armed with their life's experiences, "know it when they see it"......setting up 1000/2000 marks a year will give some that knack.;-)

The whole is the sum of its parts regards

john


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> If you adopt this standard, I suspect that you will contract, not expand the pool of judges ...


 
I answered your question ("Do you think that Field Trial Judging needs improvement?) ......not saying the pool doesn't need to be expanded but that's another question.

I don't think there are any shortcuts to improving judging. Train & handle dogs, ask questions from those more experienced with whom you train. Clubs should pair an experienced, knowledgeable judge who knows dog work with an the inexperienced, new judges in the minor stakes. Such OJT is one of the things that helps judges gain experience. But still no substitute for training & handling dogs on a regular/daily basis.

I also know getting knowledgeable, honest, fair, unbiased judges is not an easy task. We struggle in our club & have for years to get good judges. I think that is part of the reason why we struggle, because we want to maintain a consistently high std in the judging of our trials - and we miss the mark some, just like even good judges occasionally miss the mark in their test set-ups.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Keith Farmer said:


> Ted you have asked this question a few times with no answers. Here is a suggestion:
> 
> I have judged a few events (invitational money events) and I have clients that judge. When setting up marking tests and blind tests I spent many hours going through each mark running various dogs on the marks to establish proper bird location and to obtain the desired results (good marking dogs are rewarded and not-so-good marking dogs are not rewarded).
> 
> ...



First, Keith, I like the idea of using a setup dog when a judge is deciding on a test the day before! I can't think of the times that I have had my dogs in the truck with me when judging and not getting any work. Most can usually see a hard mark on a field, but using a setup dog to confirm or disprove it would be VERY nice.

Pros
It would be a definite positive for getting more judges.
Two or Three dogs running the setup can reveal flaws quickly.

Cons
Time and man power.
Wind changes always throw a wrench in things but it helps to have some insight already


AKC Rule book states this 5 times.
Accurate marking is of primary importance. page 26
Accurate marking is of primary importance. page 30
“Accurate marking is of primary importance. page 39
*Accurate marking, or memory of “falls’’ is of paramount
importance. *page 48

This must be consider on ALL callbacks.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> Setting a test at the right level for the field of dogs on that day seems to be a problem in my circuit. Sometimes too easy for one series and sometimes too hard for another series. The discussion about elimination is relevant for the too hard tests. I agree with Ted that I like a challenging test both as a judge and a handler. I would rather see the philosophy of hard test and generous callbacks than easy test and pencilled out dogs.
> 
> However, I think there is a different philosophy between 1. the judges who set up a tough test to find the best dogs and know how to challenge the field to allow those dogs to rise and 2
> 
> ...


Probably the best response to this thread so far. I to like the hard and gernerous way of judging.

But don't you think that setting the right test for the field at hand only works when one is will to judge the work. The easyest thing to do when judging is set up a test that nobody can do. 

That being said often test are set that you would think are way hard and end up being a cupcake for some reason or another. And often the reverse happens. In in my opinion one is better off with a test that is a little light as opposed to one that is way over everyone's head. Let's face it at a weekend trial there is only going to be maybe a handful of dogs that are going to qualify for a National so why would one think that you would have to set up such a barn burner. Judges are called upon to judge the dogs. You can't do that when you have the barn burner that's what known to me as "making good dogs look bad". 

I for one am really getting tired of seeing dogs win or place that didn't mark but maybe one or two birds out of at least six at a trial. Dogs more often than not are now being awarded championship points and titles after having gorilla hunts on multiple marks but they were the only ones to stumble upon the birds.

I am really surprised with the number of people that think there is only one or two series constitutes a trial. Sure marking is of primary importance. But don't discount the blinds if you want to win or place. Blinds are judged with control being a key factor. I don't mind keyholes or obsticles at a distance but they are not the end all to the blind. As long as one is trying to do the blind weather or not one gets the obsticle is not the sole determing factor on weather or not a dog fails the blind.

Though I agree with Ted's fundamentals the biggest problem with them is that most people judging don't train or handle their own dogs. IMO these are things that are learned through that process.


----------



## Rick Coats (Oct 3, 2007)

Ted to your original question, I think the consciences answer is “Yes, Field Trial Judging needs to be improved, to suit my preferences”. Aside from the rare occasion when a Judge simply ignores a rule, nearly all the complaints I hear are in regard to individual preferences. Judges have biases; it is the nature of humanity. It is NOT a bad thing. I love hard going fire breathers, you like well mannered workman like dogs. I like blinds run by high rollers, you want precise lines and carefully selected entry points. I prefer to judge the work in the field, you are more concerned with line manners. These differences should be embraced. The level of criticism is way out of proportion to the problem. We as a sport should be making every effort to include more participants in both competition and judging. The constant Internet criticism of judging is counter productive. From my point of view Field Trial Judging, although far from perfect, is exactly as it should be, friendly amateur participation in a hobby.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Barry said:


> I for one am really getting tired of seeing dogs win or place that didn't mark but maybe one or two birds out of at least six at a trial. Dogs more often than not are now being awarded championship points and titles after having gorilla hunts on multiple marks but they were the only ones to stumble upon the birds.
> 
> I am really surprised with the number of people that think there is only one or two series constitutes a trial. Sure marking is of primary importance. But don't discount the blinds if you want to win or place. Blinds are judged with control being a key factor. I don't mind keyholes or obsticles at a distance but they are not the end all to the blind. As long as one is trying to do the blind weather or not one gets the obsticle is not the sole determing factor on weather or not a dog fails the blind.


Isn't this a contradiction????

I guess that is where the fine art of judging comes in....

Yes, the pool of experienced handler/trainer judges is getting smaller. Sooooooo...... go adopt a newbie and help them learn!

Take them with you to your trainer or training grounds. Share your experiences. This will help expand the experienced handler/trainer/judging pool.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Keith Farmer said:


> My biggest gripe with FT setups today is that true marking dogs are not always represented in the placements. Good handling dogs perhaps, since so much emphasis is placed on blinds, but not necessarily the best *marking* dogs..


My current experience does not include trials on either coast or the Midwest but in my area and the other areas I run I could not disagree more. The blinds are only an invitation to see who can do water marks.


----------



## Keith Farmer (Feb 8, 2003)

> My current experience does not include trials on either coast or the Midwest but in my area and the other areas I run I could not disagree more. The blinds are only an invitation to see who can do water marks.


You really should get out more.

Ed, it is not always the case, but far too much emphasis is placed on very difficult blind work rather than true marking...simply a waste of a great marking dog's abilities IMO.



> The blinds are only an invitation to see who can do water marks


As it should be. But the trend here of late is, in the first series, to throw marks...run a difficult land blind...THEN go get the marks. That may be a means to drop the number of dogs to a manageable level but is it REALLY testing marking ability? I would argue it is not in most of the scenarios I have seen.




.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

TBell said:


> Isn't this a contradiction????
> 
> I guess that is where the fine art of judging comes in....
> 
> ...


IMO The pool is not getting smaller... it's that some experienced trainer handlers /potential judges are not being asked to the extent that some others are, and that is what is causing an apparent shortfall.

john


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Keith Farmer said:


> You really should get out more.


It sure sounds that way, one of my young ones is an adequate but not a great marker but he runs fabulous blinds so I need to run some of those trials. 

Actually I've been out quite a bit in my career, just not a lot in the last 6-8 years but that may be changing soon.

But then again, maybe you should get out more, take a swing through Texas/Louisiana/Oklahoma next spring.

And IMHO throwing the marks, then doing a blind first, then picking up the marks makes the marks more not less difficult.


----------



## Keith Farmer (Feb 8, 2003)

> And IMHO throwing the marks, then doing a blind first, then picking up the marks makes the marks more not less difficult.



Does not matter if the dog stinks up the blind...regardless of how he marks afterwords.

Now one could argue that possibly the dog would have stunk up the blind regardless of when it is run. But MY point is that the blind is run first in order to drop dogs...judges are not REALLY looking for the best marking dog in THAT scenario...IMO



.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

john fallon said:


> IMO The pool is not getting smaller... it's that some experienced trainer handlers /potential judges are not being asked to the extent that some others are, and that is what is causing an apparent shortfall.
> 
> john


I hear that statement by some. I say it is utter BS!!!!!!!!!

Who are these qualified experienced handlers that aren't being asked????


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Keith Farmer said:


> Now one could argue that possibly the dog would have stunk up the blind regardless of when it is run. But MY point is that the blind is run first in order to drop dogs...judges are not REALLY looking for the best marking dog in THAT scenario...IMO


If you've never had the pleasure of judging a 100+ dog open in 3 days you should, it will help to understand why the end often justifies the means.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> *Ok, but other than trial and error, how does one learn the fundamentals of bird placement?*
> If someone asked you to list the basic principles of bird placement, what would you say?


Ted, I believe that judges that possess the talent to place birds where dogs don't want to go is the number one trait that separates the really good judges from the rest. I also believe that some people have inherent "dog sense" that combined with years of experience training, running dogs and asking questions leads them to be very good at this. I would suggest that for these folks, it would be easier for them to just set up a good test with excellent bird placement, than it would be to explain how or why they did it. On the other hand I think there are some, that no amount of training, running dogs or asking questions is going to lead them into understanding good bird placement. 

I learned a lot from Don Berard who I believe was one of the best in placing birds, though he couldn't always say why he put that bird there. To him he just knew a dog wouldn't want to go there. Things like angling a bird down slope, where a dog would be inclined to climb up the slope become second nature to some and others never get it.

I guess my point is for clubs and training groups to identify those guys and gals that seem to get it early on and suggest that they take the test, apprentice and then put them with a good judge to judge an AA trial.

John


----------



## Keith Farmer (Feb 8, 2003)

> If you've never had the pleasure of judging a 100+ dog open in 3 days you should, it will help to understand why the end often justifies the means.


Not arguing that the method is ineffective...but is it accomplishing the desired result in terms of the AKC standard for securing/awarding the Best Marking Dog?

The ideology that equates doing x to get y when y is not the desired result is flawed. Perhaps there needs to be restrictions placed on entries (dead horse alert) so that the mess we are discussing is in the past tense rather than before us...





.


----------



## Keith Farmer (Feb 8, 2003)

> I believe that judges that possess the talent to place birds where dogs don't want to go


Not trying to be picky here but IMO this too is a flawed approach. Why would one want to place a bird where the dogs do not want to go?

Better is the judge who is able to place birds where only the best marking dogs WILL go to recover it...THAT is an art, and THAT takes experience and determination, and TIME.


.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Keith Farmer said:


> . Perhaps there needs to be restrictions placed on entries (dead horse alert) so that the mess we are discussing is in the past tense rather than before us....


ahhh yes, that is the solution but one the rule makers are unwilling to even put forth for discussion.....


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Keith Farmer said:


> Not trying to be picky here but IMO this too is a flawed approach. Why would one want to place a bird where the dogs do not want to go?
> 
> Better is the judge who is able to place birds where only the best marking dogs WILL go to recover it...THAT is an art, and THAT takes experience and determination, and TIME.
> 
> ...


I think we are saying the exact same thing.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Keith Farmer said:


> Not trying to be picky here but IMO this too is a flawed approach. *Why would one want to place a bird where the dogs do not want to go?*
> 
> *Better is the judge who is able to place birds where only the best marking dogs WILL go to recover it*...THAT is an art, and THAT takes experience and determination, and TIME.
> 
> ...


If you put the birds where the dogs want to go, you can't separate the ones that just happened upon the bird from the ones that actually marked the bird. ;-) Therefore you put the birds where the dogs don't naturally want to go, so that only the dogs that actually marked the bird go there.

In my experience, maybe even more important than putting the birds where the dogs don't want to go is to identify where the dogs want to go, and give them someplace to go where there isn't a bird.;-)


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Doug Main said:


> In my experience, maybe even more important than putting the birds where the dogs don't want to go is to identify where the dogs want to go, and give them someplace to go where there isn't a bird.;-)


and where the wind doesn't give it away...


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> desired result in terms of the AKC standard for securing/awarding the Best Marking Dog?


If this were true, why do we have blinds in all age stakes? The dogs have to be able to run blinds and mark.



> But MY point is that the blind is run first in order to drop dogs...judges are not REALLY looking for the best marking dog in THAT scenario...IMO


Aren't they? The dogs have to remember the marks after running a blind. It seems to me that taxes their memory.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

> Originally Posted by Keith Farmer
> . Perhaps there needs to be restrictions placed on entries (dead horse alert) so that the mess we are discussing is in the past tense rather than before us....





EdA said:


> ahhh yes, that is the solution but one the rule makers are unwilling to even put forth for discussion.....


Hopefully more who agree with this solution will speak up!!

How can two judges fairly judge an 90-120 dog Open in three days or even a 50-60 dog amateur in two days? 

How nice would it be to judge or run in a 30-40 dog Open/amateur and have 4 National Quality Marking tests that focus on MARKING with reasonably challenging blinds? 

What we are seeing today is that our tests are being compromised....especially the 4th series....THE MOST IMPORTANT!!!!

I know because it happened to me this fall when judging an Am with only 39 starters. Hard to put together 4 quality series in short daylight hours. We had to resort to a double on water in the last series. I HATE TO DO THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Judges will begin to look for any and every reason to drop dogs. So are the numbers ultimately the reason for BAD JUDGES????

Solution 1: Limit Entries
Solution 2: Maybe two sets of judges?
Solution 3: ?????


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> ahhh yes, that is the solution but one the rule makers are unwilling to even put forth for discussion.....


Ed

As you know, I am in favor of reducing trial size. But, that is not the subject of this thread.

Moreover, I have experienced flawed judging in trials where the entry size was less than 65 dogs in the stake.

So, although I believe that large entry sizes contribute to poor judging, I do not believe that large entry sizes are the sole cause of poor judging.

Ted


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

Limit major stakes to 40 entries and minor stakes to 25. There's reasons not to but if you want to improve the quality of the trial which would tend to improve the quality of the judging this would make a big difference. HPW


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> Ted, I believe that judges that possess the talent to place birds where dogs don't want to go is the number one trait that separates the really good judges from the rest. I also believe that some people have inherent "dog sense" that combined with years of experience training, running dogs and asking questions leads them to be very good at this. I would suggest that for these folks, it would be easier for them to just set up a good test with excellent bird placement, than it would be to explain how or why they did it. On the other hand I think there are some, that no amount of training, running dogs or asking questions is going to lead them into understanding good bird placement.
> 
> I guess my point is for clubs and training groups to identify those guys and gals that seem to get it early on and suggest that they take the test, apprentice and then put them with a good judge to judge an AA trial.
> 
> John


John

A few thoughts. I believe that:

1) There is an Art and Science to bird placement
2) There are fundamental principles of good bird placement and of bad bird placement that constitute the SCIENCE of bird placement
3) If people followed the fundamental principles of the SCIENCE of bird placements, we would have - at a minimum - satisfactory tests
4) Some people are artists, but cannot explain their artistry. They are not the people we need to improve the quality of judging.
5) For the improvement of the sport, our efforts should be focused on identifying those people who understand the SCIENCE of bird placement and are skilled at explaining the principles of that SCIENCE to others.

Ted


----------



## Keith Farmer (Feb 8, 2003)

> If this were true, why do we have blinds in all age stakes? The dogs have to be able to run blinds and mark.


Howard that appears to be an intentional muddying of the waters. I NEVER said nor implied that blinds were not to be considered. What I DID say and imply is that when blinds are run FIRST in an all-age stake...and dogs are eliminated as a result of a poor blind...THAT is not in keeping with the standard IMO.




> Aren't they? The dogs have to remember the marks after running a blind. It seems to me that taxes their memory.


No. Poison birds have completely different results on different dogs. I recently watched an FC AFC well trained dog spin in circles behind the gunner on his "delayed mark" after running a very nice poison birds (yes there were two) blind. He was so intimidated about being sent back in to pick up as a mark a bird he was ordered not to retrieve to begin with.

How pathetic that judges disrespect the dogs and handlers in such fashion when a well thought out test would showcase the talent of these dogs rather than make them look foolish.


.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Ed
> As you know, I am in favor of reducing trial size. But, that is not the subject of this thread.


Sorry I strayed off topic, just following the flow of the discussion.

As to your original question (I will be a fatalist on this one) there is absolutely nothing substantive any of us can do without the support and backing of the sanctioning body, i.e. The American Kennel Club.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Keith Farmer said:


> No. Poison birds have completely different results on different dogs. I recently watched an FC AFC well trained dog spin in circles behind the gunner on his "delayed mark" after running a very nice poison birds (yes there were two) blind. He was so intimidated about being sent back in to pick up as a mark a bird he was ordered not to retrieve to begin with.


Can you spell " B - A - L - A - N - C - E " ? You can't just train the dogs "no-bird" or "leave-it" and expect to consistently run all-age stakes. They have to be comfortable picking them up too. ;-)


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

in defense of judges...I think that they are somewhat handcuffed with the grounds that they are presented, when they are given the same FT grounds year after year, on grounds that many of the locals or even some of the circuit pros train on, there are only so many ways to cut up a pond


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

BonMallari said:


> in defense of judges...I think that they are somewhat handcuffed with the grounds that they are presented, when they are given the same FT grounds year after year, on grounds that many of the locals or even some of the circuit pros train on, there are only so many ways to cut up a pond


and it's pretty difficult to use "good bird placement" in a flat field with very little cover using ducks, all who have judged much have been faced with this problem

it's pretty easy to armchair quarterback and critique judges, especially when some of those critiquing have never walked the walk


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

This thread asked the question, "Do you think that Field Trial Judging needs improvement?" The obvious answer is 'yes' simply because FT judges & their judging is not perfect, it doesn't mean there is not quality judging at many trials. Just saying, there is always room for improvement, both in the rules, the application of the rules & in the judging in accordance with them. From the diversity of responses to the OP's question it is abundantly clear why there is room for improvement even if we all don't agree on the improvement needed.


----------



## Aaron Homburg (Sep 23, 2005)

*Interesting Thread!!! In the past two years I have had dogs participate in 42 events. I was not present at all of the events as they have been with a pro part of that time as well as part time with my co-owner. I would say that overall the judging has been very good at all of the stakes. Although, there are certain judges you really like to run under and others you just as soon not run under again. Major problem with judging that I see that a lot of the judges that we all like to run under have AA dogs or are running young dogs that will soon be running AA dogs and they do not want to give up more that 2 or 3 weekends a year to run, and who could blame them for that?

Things I think could help:

1. Pick your test and go with it! Don't worry about......oh it is only a 65 dog open....set up your test and run it....some will do it some will not....let's findout who can mark! I would a lot rather head home after the first knowing what my dog can or cannot do.

2. Don't try to trick dogs. If you think you are setting up a trick....you probably are....what does this accomplish????? Let the dog get a good look at the birds and let's go see who can find them!!

3. Set up blinds that give the handler and dog a chance to work together. I think it is Ted that states in his blinds he likes to give the handler 2 chances in a critical area......wonderful idea....you miss it twice....probably something you need to work on!!! Also, if you have a keyhole and the handler and dog attempt to get through it and maybe miss it by say 6 inches........it is not a Failure!!! Had a little keyhole blind this summer......nice blind.....thought I had it whipped.....stopped.....casted.....took too much cast......stopped.....gave another cast and missed the keyhole by inches...ok maybe a foot or two......thought to myself....way to go bonehead messed up another set of very good marks.........callbacks came and too my surprise I was still playing.......really appreciated judges that took the marks and understood that we did try to get their keyhole.....(Shayne & Jimmy) we ended up missing the money bird in the 4th but at least we were there.

My two Cents,

Aaron*


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> John
> 
> A few thoughts. I believe that:
> 
> ...


Hi Ted,

any chance you and other qualified judges could tell us what the Fundamental principles of the Science of bird placement would be?
Or do you think a different thread should be started on the Science of bird placement?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Aaron Homburg said:


> *Interesting Thread!!! Set up blinds that give the handler and dog a chance to work together. I think it is Ted that states in his blinds he likes to give the handler 2 chances in a critical area......wonderful idea....you miss it twice....probably something you need to work on!!! Also, if you have a keyhole and the handler and dog attempt to get through it and maybe miss it by say 6 inches........it is not a Failure!!! Had a little keyhole blind this summer......nice blind.....thought I had it whipped.....stopped.....casted.....took too much cast......stopped.....gave another cast and missed the keyhole by inches...ok maybe a foot or two......thought to myself....way to go bonehead messed up another set of very good marks.........callbacks came and too my surprise I was still playing.......really appreciated judges that took the marks and understood that we did try to get their keyhole.....(Shayne & Jimmy) we ended up missing the money bird in the 4th but at least we were there.
> 
> My two Cents,
> 
> Aaron*


Aaron,

I posted on another thread about blinds an almost identical situation that I was in. Cudo's to judges that actually judge a dog. I ended up doing the last series and getting an RJ in a very tough Amateur, plus it was the first AA test my then three year old had ever run. I was very proud of my boy, but if the judges had just adhered to a black and white judgement re: a keyhole blind, it would have been another of those weekends where I get to tell the wife what a great set of marks he had, but unfortunately missed the blind "by that much".

John


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> I hear that statement by some. I say it is utter BS!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Who are these qualified experienced handlers that aren't being asked????


Who is qualified and not asked where you run ? I have no idea. But I do _know _by reading the under the bus threads on here who probably is "Not".

As to where I run I hope that that is a rhetorical question because I would not add insult to injury by calling them out.

john


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> and it's pretty difficult to use "good bird placement" in a flat field with very little cover using ducks, all who have judged much have been faced with this problem
> 
> it's pretty easy to armchair quarterback and critique judges, especially when some of those critiquing have never walked the walk



Speaking of quarterbacks...someone that has never played a minute of football can distinguish between both good and poor refereeing and good and poor play.

john


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Speaking of quarterbacks...someone that has never played a minute of football can distinguish between both good and poor refereeing and good and poor play.
> 
> john


nice try but a very very poor analogy, the game is not played on a standard sized field by a static number of participants of more or less equal abilities and officiated by people who are actually paid for their effort

so are you telling us you are an excellent judge of football and officiating but never donned a helmet????...;-)


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

EdA said:


> nice try but a very very poor analogy, the game is not played on a standard sized field by a static number of participants of more or less equal abilities and officiated by people who are actually paid for their effort
> 
> so are you telling us you are an excellent judge of football and officiating but never donned a helmet????...;-)


C'mon Ed --maybe he was just pontificating!!!


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

John Fallon plays the game and plays it well. I have watched him move to the next series in amat. Seen him ribbon in qual. And have run under him.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> nice try but a very very poor analogy, the game is not played on a standard sized field by a static number of participants of more or less equal abilities and officiated by people who are actually paid for their effort
> 
> so are you telling us you are an excellent judge of football and officiating but never donned a helmet????...;-)



Back then we didn't wear helmets 

john


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Wade said:


> Hi Ted,
> 
> any chance you and other qualified judges could tell us what the Fundamental principles of the Science of bird placement would be?
> Or do you think a different thread should be started on the Science of bird placement?



I am working on a list for a future Retrievers Online article with Dennis

But, an example would be angles.

If you want to make a mark easier, approach the hazard squarely.
If you want to make a mark harder, approach the hazard at an angle.

Angles add complexity to marks


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

Thank you, if you have any more please share


----------



## mealman (Jan 19, 2005)

One problem I see is judges set up test that use a flyer that has to be highly controlled and accurately placed. This causes multiple no bird during the trial and is a tangible that can not be controlled well enough to use. For example the 6th series of the national open. The pheasant flyer and duck flyer should have been switched because ducks are far easie to control than pheasant providing a far more consistent test.

I think it would be great if the PRTA would put on yearly clinics for judging. I think it would be a great asset for the professional trainers to teach judges how different factors affect dogs. The reason I would prefer if pro trainer held these clinics is because they train on and see way more set up in a year than most amateurs see in 3 years, an since our game is judged by amateurs. I think they should have some guidance from the experts i.e. The pro's

Steve


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Not my words but those of a contributor to the judging manual.


*DIFFICULT BIRD PLACEMENTS*

*General*
*> Terrain: hold line vs. slope, squaring / wanting to run up or down, add rough cover, etc.?*
*> Ditches / Roads: Angle and Recover *
*> Super Long: Perseverance / Control (sits/casts)*
*> Obstacles/Mounds midway / up front*
*> Super contrary factors*
*> Bad paths / slots*
*> Double obstacles (e.g. jump tree then shoreline entry)… extend distance between obstacles*
*> Way-up-and-out*

*Difficult Throws/ Bird Placement*
*> Apart from gun location:*
*• Across channel or to an island*
*• Downhill, with square hill behind gun tendency *
*• Base of hill (tend to drive to top)*
*• In water vs. on bank (tend to exit and hunt)*
*• Way-up-and-out*
*• Throw across road / ditch / logs / hedgerow - retire?*
*> Throw / Angle into cover*
*> Mama-Poppa*
*> Long Marks, throw into a strong cross-wind (quartering away wind?)*
*> Short Marks, throw with wind (quartering away wind)*
*> Intermediate-distance - far enough to get into full run, with hazards and other falls beyond:*
*• Land spit, water in front/beyond*
*• Run around space deep*
*• Longer gun out / beyond *
*• Check down after obstacle, with longer gun out*
*> Go-bird past shorter memory bird (especially difficult on water)*
*> Punch through hedgerow, ravine, rough / high cover, standing corn, etc.*
*> Against tree line*
*> Over stone wall / log jumps*
*> From / onto mounds: on top, at base*
*> Boat marks with land beyond / behind boat*
*> Down the shore*

*Apply each to bird throws and separately to line / in route hazards:*
*• Losing sight of guns *
*• Angle across road, ditch, channel, cover strips*
*• Over stone walls / logs *
*• Angle into / out of cover / water*


----------



## Keith Farmer (Feb 8, 2003)

> Can you spell " B - A - L - A - N - C - E " ? You can't just train the dogs "no-bird" or "leave-it" and expect to consistently run all-age stakes. They have to be comfortable picking them up too. :wink:



I can spell fine Doug. It was not my dog that acted like a rat on crack. But it _was_ a National Open qualified field champion/amateur field champion...and he was not the only one to do so! You make it sound so simple...with some dogs it is not that simple and judges capitalize on that...that is pathetic.



.


----------



## Keith Farmer (Feb 8, 2003)

One last comment from me to sum up the issue as I see it:

Unless and until the prevailing attitude is changed by the retriever community from one of elimination mindedness to one of looking for the best all around dog-mindedness these type issues will never go away.

In other words, if judges continue to approach FTs with a mindset of eliminating dogs until they reach a manageable number BEFORE they seriously look at the field in front of them there will continue to be ridiculous tests with questionable outcomes. The mind change is up to the retriever community at large and can be accomplished through various resources such as this forum. However, if all that some of you guys want to do is defend your pet elimination processes then NO change will ever occur. 


.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Keith Farmer said:


> One last comment from me to sum up the issue as I see it:
> 
> Unless and until the prevailing attitude is changed by the retriever community from one of elimination mindedness to one of looking for the best all around dog-mindedness these type issues will never go away.
> 
> ...


You forgot to ask so I'll ask for you. CAN I GET AN AMEN!!!


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Wade said:


> Thank you, if you have any more please share


The closer you put the hazard to the mat, the more likely the dog is to navigate it. The farther away you put the hazard from the mat, the more likely the dog is to avoid it or deflect away from it

So by moving the hazard closer to, or farther away from the mat, you make the mark easier or harder

That's all for now


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> The closer you put the hazard to the mat, the more likely the dog is to navigate it. The farther away you put the hazard from the mat, the more likely the dog is to avoid it or deflect away from it
> 
> So by moving the hazard closer to, or farther away from the mat, you make the mark easier or harder
> 
> That's all for now


Funny thing, & this is not to start an argument . Many years ago Greg McDaniel, whom I considered one of the better judges in our area came to NWRC to judge. I was with him setup day & marshaled his stake, the Open. He sat up next to a ditch in a fairly flat field with average cover. I commented to him that this looked somewhat easy, & he said watch the dogs. The creepers are punished if they creep, many of the rest will be trying to figure out how they are going to navigate the ditch rather than marking the birds well. He was right, but he was also a good judge who trained his own dogs. No guns retired, the handlers were trying to figure out how to pick up the birds, it was an entertaining wet cold miserable day ;-). As it can be here.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Keith Farmer said:


> No. Poison birds have completely different results on different dogs. I recently watched an FC AFC well trained dog spin in circles behind the gunner on his "delayed mark" after running a very nice poison birds (yes there were two) blind. He was so intimidated about being sent back in to pick up as a mark a bird he was ordered not to retrieve to begin with.
> 
> How pathetic that judges disrespect the dogs and handlers in such fashion when a well thought out test would showcase the talent of these dogs rather than make them look foolish.


The dog was apparently not as well trained as his title would suggest, what you describe is a failry routine training setup not to be overdone. As for disrespect, the aim of a fairly large diverse judging pool should be lack of test standardization. Some of the highly respected judges in this sport who are generally good dog people have as their pet test the check down bird & some are masters at setting same. The test favors slow piggy dogs but is generally accepted as OK.


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

Marvin S said:


> The dog was apparently not as well trained as his title would suggest, what you describe is a failry routine training setup not to be overdone. As for disrespect, the aim of a fairly large diverse judging pool should be lack of test standardization. Some of the highly respected judges in this sport who are generally good dog people have as their pet test the check down bird & some are masters at setting same. The test favors slow piggy dogs but is generally accepted as OK.


Marvin

I agree with your comment about the apparently well-trained dog spinning on the PB but not with the short-retired favouring the slow piggy dog. This test is always a challenge and we all work hard on it. It is especially tough with a visible or a flyer beyond or an earlier longer run. 

However, I have found that the dogs who can do this are often well-schooled, thoughtful and pretty calm, cool and collected and by no means "pigs". I often see the slow piggy dog who by their nature are often nervous simply tug on through. If they don’t get a whiff, they too are gone. Of course, the wild rambunctious dog who is on a yahoo mission is going to blow though but this dog has other issues and needs more finesse despite his style.

This test can be a real good one or it can be a deceptive blood bath but I really distinguish it from the tests that favour the tugs like really tight keyholes. I can’t universally curse short retireds so some are OK and some are not. 

Cheers

PS. I don't think any judge should rely on "pet" tests day in and day out!


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

Marvin S said:


> Funny thing, & this is not to start an argument . Many years ago Greg McDaniel, whom I considered one of the better judges in our area came to NWRC to judge. I was with him setup day & marshaled his stake, the Open. He sat up next to a ditch in a fairly flat field with average cover. I commented to him that this looked somewhat easy, & he said watch the dogs. The creepers are punished if they creep, many of the rest will be trying to figure out how they are going to navigate the ditch rather than marking the birds well. He was right, but he was also a good judge who trained his own dogs. No guns retired, the handlers were trying to figure out how to pick up the birds, it was an entertaining wet cold miserable day ;-). As it can be here.


Marvin

I agree with the difficulty of this set-up. I've seen this and used it myself and often in training. The real early dip out of sight is a killer. It doesn't negate the generality that Ted alludes to. I think his generality is that when you add distance to a factor or a hazard it compounds the difficulty. Your example simply shows that judges can't make structured rules to judge by. Judging by formulae is not the way to go. 

We can all make lists of things to consider or guidelines to follow but in the end, the judge needs to know dogs, have respect for the best ones and know how to find them.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

john fallon said:


> Back then we didn't wear helmets
> 
> john


that explains a few things


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Keith Farmer said:


> One last comment from me to sum up the issue as I see it:
> 
> *Unless and until the prevailing attitude is changed by the retriever community from one of elimination mindedness to one of looking for the best all around dog-mindedness these type issues will never go away.*
> 
> ...


EXCELLENT, Keith! This should be the goal, however, let's simply look at the numbers of it, and then maybe you can see why the quality is being compromised.

Amateur stake with 50 dogs

1st series at 7 min a dog = This test under ideal circumstances will take 6 hours, so that means it will realistically end at 3:00 pm on Sat. if they begin at 9:00 am which is standard.

A 7 min land test is a fairly easy triple. If you put much meat to it (or didn't see factors that would put meat in it), it will extend times to 10 min per dog. This would then make the test an 8.3 hour test which ends at 5:30 with no time for a land blind.

2nd series land blind with 35 dogs (70%) back at 4 min/dog = 2.33 hours. With a 7 min land test you finished on Sat. with two series without diminished daylight hours when it is dark at 5. With a 10 min land test you must run a land blind and water blind on Sunday morning with time for nice water marks after lunch. Not getting nervous are you?

3rd series - So ideally under perfect circumstances you begin the water blind on Sunday which again can take around 8 min per dog. If you had a 10 min/dog land test you must combine land/water blinds. Callbacks are 25 dogs (70%) at 8 min/dog. This test takes 3.33 hours, and you must begin at 8:00 am to finish at 11:20 and move to water marks by noon.

4th series - If you callback 17 (again 70%) and have an average water test at 15 mins a dog it takes 4.25 hours, and you finish at you finish your trial on Sunday at 4:15. If you have less dogs, then you may be able to produce very challenging water test and finish at 5. Job Well Done!! 

*This is BEST CASE scenario with only 50 dogs so you can see what large entries can do to your theory of elimination! *

So now are we compromising the quality of choosing the BEST DOG with large trials??????? 

Even the best judge out there is lucky to have 4 PERFECTLY planned series.....dontcha think?

Now look at those same numbers with a 70 dog Am.

1st series at 7 mins/dog = 8.16 hours (8-4:30 Sat)
2nd series with 49 dogs (70%) at 4 mins/dog = 3.26 hours (8-11:30 Sun)
3rd series with 34 dogs at 8 min/dog = 4.5 hours (12-4:30)
4th series with 24 dogs at 15 min/dog = 6 hours (OOOOOPPPPPS!!)

So now you can see where the process of *ELIMINATION* must begin.......

Cut more here....compromise a test there.....combine blinds w/marks.....what else can I dream up!

Now hopefully we have that relatively inexperienced handler/judge combined with a very experienced handler/judge to figure out a way to FAIRLY judge a 70 dog AM or 100+ dog OPEN. However, you can see how this can easily get thrown askew with inexperience/bad luck/weather etc. in making for a really grouchy group of handlers.

SOLUTIONS????

ARE THERE ANY????? There seem to be many very logical thinkers out there, so can you come up with an equitable way to balance this equation?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Excellent example Tammy. I ran in a 76 dog Am last summer that even with our very long summer days, put the judges in a pencil out dog situation after they ran the land blind Sunday morning with close to fifty dogs. When you are running a dog in a situation like that, you understand that you better be perfect on those blinds or you're going to be dropped. Most don't hold it against the judges as they understand the logistics of the situation and realize the judges don't have any good options.

Similar deal at a trial this fall running under one of the best judges in the country. They had to scrap their water blind on sunday morning when the wind turned into their face and howled, despite weather reports and locals telling them the wind never blows that way. Had to start over with another water blind and started around noon. I know the judges wanted to bring more dogs back to the fourth, but with time running short some good dogs were penciled out. I lost one and couldn't argue because I realised his land blind wasn't great and he hunted the heck out of the flyer. I do believe that if they started that water blind at eight his water blind was good enough for him to get to the fourth even with that flyer hunt and 7 on the land blind.

John


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> Marvin
> 
> I agree with your comment about the apparently well-trained dog spinning on the PB but not with the short-retired favouring the slow piggy dog. This test is always a challenge and we all work hard on it. It is especially tough with a visible or a flyer beyond or an earlier longer run.
> 
> ...


Hard chargers can and do learn the short retired (check down) concept. Its difficult for most dogs but it is quite doable. As the above post mentioned, "well schooled" is the operative word.............not Piggy.

The short retired (check down) concept presents an advantage for good amatuers. Because it's time consuming for most dogs to learn, many Amatuers can devote what's necessary to teach the concept, whereas a pro, with 16 or more dogs of their truck, many times can't.

The short "check down" test is a good option sometimes, because you don't have to use ridiculously long marks to get answers in a field/terrain that doesn't have a lot of options. If the dog marks the bird and is trained for this concept (knows the "cue") they get the bird (usually). The dogs who are continually trained on the long "punch" bird concept, usually don't. (at least not without a handle) 

It's a good time management tool in certain instances but as has been said, shouldn't be used day in and day out as an excuse for lack of knowlege/experience setting up tests.

JMHO


----------



## birdhunter61 (Aug 8, 2004)

Does not matter if the dog stinks up the blind...regardless of how he marks afterwords.

Now one could argue that possibly the dog would have stunk up the blind regardless of when it is run. But MY point is that the blind is run first in order to drop dogs...judges are not REALLY looking for the best marking dog in THAT scenario...IMO

I believe the dogs that were dropped in the 1st, series at your trial all had the opportunity to do the marks even after failing the blind. The only exceptions were 1 dog who went 40 yards off line and picked up the poison bird, and the ones who picked up when their dogs got out of control at the end of the blind. By doing so they were given a chance to show their marking ability and not be dropped because they weren't under control on a blind. The marks were challenging, but doable. Most dogs seemed to have trouble with the 75 yd flyer, as well as the 150 yd retired. Not a concept-set-up, just 2 well placed birds that weren't tight or tricky. I believe the best marking dogs that weekend were the ones who won the trial.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

dumb question about running a blind before marks...

The winners on any given weekend will do both the marks and blinds better than the rest of the field. Correct?

It's the dog's overall performance we ultimately look at to make the final decisions, right?

Dogs that front foot the land marks might still get dropped if thier blinds are poor, right?

So what diff does it make what order the series are in?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> dumb question about running a blind before marks...
> 
> The winners on any given weekend will do both the marks and blinds better than the rest of the field. Correct?
> 
> ...


Darrin, be very careful about interjecting logic into the discussion....


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

John Robinson said:


> Excellent example Tammy. I ran in a 76 dog Am last summer that even with our very long summer days, put the judges in a pencil out dog situation after they ran the land blind Sunday morning with close to fifty dogs. When you are running a dog in a situation like that, you understand that you better be perfect on those blinds or you're going to be dropped. Most don't hold it against the judges as they understand the logistics of the situation and realize the judges don't have any good options.
> 
> Similar deal at a trial this fall running under one of the best judges in the country. They had to scrap their water blind on sunday morning when the wind turned into their face and howled, despite weather reports and locals telling them the wind never blows that way. Had to start over with another water blind and started around noon. I know the judges wanted to bring more dogs back to the fourth, but with time running short some good dogs were penciled out. I lost one and couldn't argue because I realised his land blind wasn't great and he hunted the heck out of the flyer. I do believe that if they started that water blind at eight his water blind was good enough for him to get to the fourth even with that flyer hunt and 7 on the land blind.
> 
> John


Thanks, John. I think that most handlers understand that there are time constraints.

.....it is when time and circumstance ALLOW the use of generous callbacks and big tests to find THE BEST DOG and judges choose to NOT to ...... that probably causes the majority of the complaints!


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

EdA said:


> Darrin, be very careful about interjecting logic into the discussion....


I'm off topic anyway Ed


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> dumb question about running a blind before marks...
> 
> The winners on any given weekend will do both the marks and blinds better than the rest of the field. Correct?
> 
> ...


This should go without saying but...

The "diff" is that in order for marking to be of primary importance in picking the winner in the field that weekend,( which is what we are there to do)...you must have seen the dogs Mark .Using the blind as a ticket to run the Marks precludes your having to be able to do so. 

Ideally what should happen is to run the blinds last I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong but...*I think *that is how it was years ago

john.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

john fallon said:


> This should go without saying but...
> 
> The "diff" is that in order for marking to be of primary importance in picking the winner in the field that weekend,( which is what we are there to do)...you must have seen the dogs Mark .Using the blind as a ticket to run the Marks precludes your having to be able to do so.
> 
> ...


You are correct...the blinds USED to be the fourth series, back in the 70's, cant tell you when it changed


----------



## Mike W. (Apr 22, 2008)

I would love to see a trial go old school with it and run the two sets of marks in the first two series. And frankly it could probably be done if the entry numbers are in the 50's. Lots of trials this year finished on Saturday afternoons.

Or maybe run land marks w/ a blind, then run the water marks for the 3rd.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

junfan68 said:


> I would love to see a trial go old school with it and run the two sets of marks in the first two series. And frankly it could probably be done if the entry numbers are in the 50's. Lots of trials this year finished on Saturday afternoons.
> 
> Or maybe run land marks w/ a blind, then run the water marks for the 3rd.


but that opens up a whole can of worms...

Dog A lines the blind, Dog B one whistles the blind,Dog C two whistles the blind...who wins ?

the rules state that marking is of primary importance

if you move the blinds to the final series, in essence you have broken the spirit of that rule

The Nationals end on a marking test, so should the weekend trial...


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

junfan68 said:


> Or maybe run land marks w/ a blind, then run the water marks for the 3rd.


That was the routine in through the 60's and early 70's.

2 problems: (1)More often than not the water blind determined the winner, not marking. (2) Increase cost to the clubs by throwing water marks for more dogs.

Tim


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

BonMallari said:


> but that opens up a whole can of worms...
> 
> Dog A lines the blind, Dog B one whistles the blind,Dog C two whistles the blind...who wins ?
> 
> ...



It would only mean anything and come into play if the three dogs had a comparable set of marks , then, if the number of whistles were indicative of the quality of the dogs blind the placements would fall A then B, then C....

john


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> That was the routine in through the 60's and early 70's.
> 
> 2 problems: (1)More often than not the water blind determined the winner, not marking. (2) Increase cost to the clubs by throwing water marks for more dogs.
> 
> Tim


Problem #(1) is just an example of poor judging ........and with 2.5 live birds/entered dog *mandated to be available for use by the Judges *the birds to do so should have already been bought and paid for so,#(2) should never even be considered as a valid reason


john


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

junfan68 said:


> I would love to see a trial go old school with it and run the two sets of marks in the first two series.


That would be New School, as previously stated in the mid 70s the third series changed from water marks to water blind mostly for practical reasons as it takes less time with more dogs to run blinds versus marks

Time and it's availability is the engine that drives the game!


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> That would be New School, as previously stated in the mid 70s the third series changed from water marks to water blind mostly for practical reasons as it takes less time with more dogs to run blinds versus marks
> 
> Time and it's availability is the engine that drives the game!



That's a good thing ???

john


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

john fallon said:


> That's a good thing ???
> 
> john


Neither good nor bad John, but reality, a concept you seem to have difficulty embracing


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> Neither good nor bad John, but reality, a concept you seem to have difficulty embracing


BUZZZZZZZTTT !!! Wrong answer. 
It's a very bad thing..One that has turned the Basic Principles of the Standard Procedure for Non Slip Retriever Field Trials on it's head.

It's the Tail wagging the Dog, a concept you seem to have NO difficulty embracing.

john


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

john fallon said:


> BUZZZZZZZTTT !!! Wrong answer.
> It's a very bad thing..One that has turned the Basic Principles of the Standard Procedure for Non Slip Retriever Field Trials on it's head.
> 
> It's the Tail wagging the Dog, a concept you seem to have NO difficulty embracing.
> ...


Where's the 'like' button?? Too funny!


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

john fallon said:


> It's the Tail wagging the Dog, a concept you seem to have NO difficulty embracing.john


Because I know infinitely more about dogs than you do, I know how much you cherish the last word so I concede that to you, the Colts and Titans is significantly more interesting than an inane discussion with you....;-)


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

I remember talking to Jo McFall a few years ago. She said back in the days when they ran the water blind last, it was usually the dog who won the water blind that won the trial. She thought it was the last thing the judges saw and it therefore had more weight than an earlier series. I never saw it, but it makes sense to me.


----------



## Chad Baker (Feb 5, 2003)

What if you did a land/ waterblind combo and called it your 1st and second series that would probably give you more time to see more bigtime marking tests for the last two series? Am I thinking outside the box too much? You get rid of dogs that fail blinds which take less time. Some will argue that there dog didn't get a chance to pickup a flyer and hate to get dropped without picking up a mark. If I had 117 dogs this weekend more than likely I would shoot a flyer first and a middle distance retired bird second and ask handlers to run a blind before picking up the marks. I have been a contestant and liked these mechanics it was very efficient and very demanding. The double was put in place where dogs had to mark or they hunted the back forty.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

john fallon said:


> BUZZZZZZZTTT !!! Wrong answer.
> It's a very bad thing..One that has turned the Basic Principles of the Standard Procedure for Non Slip Retriever Field Trials on it's head.
> 
> It's the Tail wagging the Dog, a concept you seem to have NO difficulty embracing.
> ...


Just out of curiosity, how can most if not everybody be wrong but you on most issues? Why must you nit pick over simple verbiage and be soo abrasive?


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Howard N said:


> I remember talking to Jo McFall a few years ago. She said back in the days when they ran the water blind last, it was usually the dog who won the water blind that won the trial. She thought it was the last thing the judges saw and it therefore had more weight than an earlier series. I never saw it, but it makes sense to me.


That's what Roy told us way back when...Line the Blind and make the other dogs beat you...Clint won most of his trials that way...the only one that he didnt was at RKMRC '73 when Judge lined the blind in the 4th series of the Amateur, he was taking congratulations from everyone since he had already won the Open earlier that morning..they not only had a 5th series but a 6th series to boot before they knocked him out


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

What was the average entry size for an AM in the 70's?

I don't see how you could finish a trial on time with 70 dogs if you did the water marks befor the water blind. When a trial runs real late on Sunday it puts alot of extra and unneeded stress on ther club members , most of the hired help is gone by then and you are left with volenteers that have been there most of the weekend and not all members necisarily live close.


----------



## Guest (Dec 10, 2010)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> Just out of curiosity, how can most if not everybody be wrong but you on most issues? Why must you nit pick over simple verbiage and be soo abrasive?


Shhhhh. It's best to just pretend like he's not in the room.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> Just out of curiosity, how can most if not everybody be wrong but you on most issues? Why must you nit pick over simple verbiage and be soo abrasive?


He played too much football without a helmet


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

TBell said:


> Thanks, John. I think that most handlers understand that there are time constraints.


Actually, I am not so sure that judges or competitors understand the importance of time management

A friend of mine once said - "As the mechanics go, so go the callbacks."


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> He played too much football without a helmet


There Jacob, now you know.

john


----------



## 24116 (May 8, 2004)

Todd Caswell said:


> What was the average entry size for an AM in the 70's?
> 
> I don't see how you could finish a trial on time with 70 dogs if you did the water marks befor the water blind. When a trial runs real late on Sunday it puts alot of extra and unneeded stress on ther club members , most of the hired help is gone by then and you are left with volenteers that have been there most of the weekend and not all members necisarily live close.


Todd if I remember the stories correctly. in the 70's and into the 80's it was common for AA stakes to be 35-50 and often finished in 1 day. I've also heard that more than once derbies for either HARC or MFTA were over 100 back then. It would be best to ask either charlie or van bergen as both of them are older than dirt


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Howard N said:


> I remember talking to Jo McFall a few years ago. She said back in the days when they ran the water blind last, it was usually the dog who won the water blind that won the trial. She thought it was the last thing the judges saw and it therefore had more weight than an earlier series. I never saw it, but it makes sense to me.


Having played the game in those days I wouldn't agree with Jo's assessment. There were dogs you just did not want to go into the last series - WB - even with. Roy with Piper was one & Vance Morgan with whoever he had there was another. Against the other dogs you had an even or better chance. 

The concept changed as the entries got larger & it was strictly a time management tool, plus it generally saved most clubs $75 or $100 on flyers, which in those days was serious funds.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> Just out of curiosity, how can most if not everybody be wrong but you on most issues? Why must you nit pick over simple verbiage and be soo abrasive?


You are going to have to be more specific on the issues and the people you are refering to........Nit pick ? Say what you mean and mean what you say, The devil is in the details 

...and for a nice guy like me the abrasiveness on here takes years of practice

john


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

> charlie or van bergen as both of them are older than dirt


: Funny


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

john fallon said:


> You are going to have to be more specific on the issues and the people you are refering to........Nit pick ? Say what you mean and mean what you say, The devil is in the details
> 
> ...and for a nice guy like me the abrasiveness on here takes years of practice
> 
> john


:barf:



...


----------



## Bayou Magic (Feb 7, 2004)

Over 13 pages on this topic so far...drawing any conclusions yet?

Bird placement is crucial, and there are judges that simply don't know squat about it. Then there are those few that seem to know placements before a mark is thrown. 

With those harsh words said, even the best judges can screw up from time to time, and I hope I develop the wisdom to separate the honest mistakes from miscarriage of judging duties. 

fp


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Chad Baker said:


> What if you did a land/ waterblind combo and called it your 1st and second series that would probably give you more time to see more bigtime marking tests for the last two series? Am I thinking outside the box too much? You get rid of dogs that fail blinds which take less time. Some will argue that there dog didn't get a chance to pickup a flyer and hate to get dropped without picking up a mark.


This scenario wouldn't fit the rule 'marking is of Primary Importance' for me.' The next scenario would be a better choice...




Chad Baker said:


> If I had 117 dogs this weekend more than likely I would shoot a flyer first and a middle distance retired bird second and ask handlers to run a blind before picking up the marks. I have been a contestant and liked these mechanics it was very efficient and very demanding. The double was put in place where dogs had to mark or they hunted the back forty.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Bayou Magic said:


> Over 13 pages on this topic so far...drawing any conclusions yet?
> 
> Bird placement is crucial, and there are judges that simply don't know squat about it. Then there are those few that seem to know placements before a mark is thrown.
> 
> fp


Frank, your probably right here. Seems that the judges that can't place a bird or place a bird to fall where they can't see a huge hunt must have the latter criteria....


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

Don't judges score each bird? wouldn't that automatically make Marks of primary importance because there are 6-8 birds marked vs. 2-3 birds in blinds? If you scored each Series as opposed to each bird doesn't that make it much harder to place primary importance on Marks? What percentage of the score should be marks and what percentage should be blinds? 70/30? 60/40? 66.6/33.3?


----------



## Malcolm (Oct 13, 2006)

Bird placement?
Are you saying it's poor because dogs can't do it or, is it to easy because everyone did it???? 

What's your definition of doing it?

I haven't seen any easy AA tests. So I'm wondering if those of you who feel this way could elaborate?

thanks in advance


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

kzunell said:


> Don't judges score each bird? wouldn't that automatically make Marks of primary importance because there are 6-8 birds marked vs. 2-3 birds in blinds? If you scored each Series as opposed to each bird doesn't that make it much harder to place primary importance on Marks? What percentage of the score should be marks and what percentage should be blinds? 70/30? 60/40? 66.6/33.3?


Read Webster - there is nothing about weighting in the definition of "primary" . The folks that wrote the original Rule book were quite intelligent & interested in the improvement of the breed. Sort of like the Constitution .


----------



## Greg Lee - Timberpond Retrievers (Mar 11, 2009)

*Do you think that Field Trial Judging needs improvement?

If so,

1) What are the three biggest problems that you see in the tests that are set or the judging of those tests?

2) What one thing do you think would most improve FT judging?*

Been reading 14 pgs of varying responses and feel compelled to make a couple general comments.
But first, the answer to Ted's original question is unequivocally *'YES'*

My first judging assignment was a Derby in 1978 at Tar Heel Ret. Club. Yes, that's not a misprint - it was 1978!! 
My co-judge set the first test, then asked my opinion. We talked, agreed in what we were looking for, then ran it. Then he said " you set up the 2d series!" I looked at the terrain and set up the 2d series. He critiqued my test and asked me questions about "what if a dog does this or that?" " How are going to judge that?" That helped my mind set for the years and still is my philosophy when setting tests no matter what stake.

The 3 biggest problems I've encountered over the years have been:
1) *lack of appropriate or sufficient terrain *to set marks and/or blinds where the dogs don't really want to go for whatever reason/factor.

2)* Having to judge a trial stake with exceedingly large numbers.* That immediately consciously, and/or sub-consciously changes your mind set for a 2 or 3 day event depending on stake. 

3) The next problem in order of priority, as there are many additional problems for judges, *is how well organized is the Club's mechanics:* eg: Do they have to train inexperienced bird boys; can they relocate and set up the next series quickly; can they provide good flyer guns, or have a lot of 'no-birds'; do they have the equipment the judges might need such as blinds (stand up or lay out)

These are just a few examples I've personally experienced when completing a judges assignment.

Now: for Ted's second question, "name one thing to make judging better."

*First and foremost:*
*FOLLOW the Standards of the RULE BOOK, do not interpret it!"
Next, FOLLOW the general guidelines of the Retriever FT Judging Manual;
also read as many training articles as you can for possible application to judging scenarios you might encounter;
If you are placed with a relatively new, less experienced judge, try to be the best mentor to them you can be;
Be FAIR and honest, as one day those you are judging will judge you!"*

*Last, but MOST IMPORTANTLY; **As a general rule for MYSELF, after each and every trial I critique myself and ask "How could I have completed my judging assignment better? If you can't find some way then you have failed!! We all make mistakes and I almost always see some ways that perhaps I should have done this or that. And if you make a judging mistake during the trial, DON'T BE AFRAID TO ADMIT IT AND FIX IT! Lord knows, I've made my share of them, but as a wise old USMC General told me, "Make mistakes, but don't make the same ones twice"!! Unquote!
In the end, If you try to improve your own judging then you will become a better judge and You'll be respected a lot more for being so!!*

Greg Lee
Timberpond Retrievers


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I think the Rule Book is an amazing piece of work and I am always disappointed that more people don't spend time becoming familiar with it

The Rule Book addresses so many pertinent topics

Visibility of Guns
Visibility of Birds
Placing of Holding Blinds, retiring of guns
Visibility of dogs on blinds
Callbacks
Notetaking
Severe, Moderate, and Minor Faults

And so on

More and more, I wonder whether passing a test on the Rule Book should be required before a person could RUN a dog at a Field Trial.


----------

