# 2018 National Retriever Championship a Judge’s Perspective



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

I think a new thread will make better continuity. My posts might be short or lengthy depending on what pops into my head when I am feeling literary. 

I was first asked to take on this judging assignment in 1988, at the time I declined for a number of reasons. The invitation was repeated regularly but I always had an excuse until they finally quit asking. Then a friend and former training partner moved back to Texas and asked me again. I told her to let me think about it for awhile. My Holland was approaching retirement so I could not invoke the I don’t want to miss a National excuse. I floated the idea to my closest confidant, my wife Jan, and training mentor and training partner who ganged up on me and said various things like “you have to” and “you owe it to the sport”. I reluctantly agreed with the backup excuse as long as my health is good which at my age can be problematical. 

If if you like this approach and are patient I will finish this before I finish Honcho Part III.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Couldn't find an emoticon I want so this is the best I can find, :monkey:I am all ears!


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

I'll even promise not to say a word, except here - that would be great Doc.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

It appears that I cannot spell, not sure how the f got there in the title, anyone remember how to edit the title?


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

contact a moderator or live with it.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

EdA said:


> It appears that I cannot spell, not sure how the f got there in the title, anyone remember how to edit the title?




Live with it Ed we should all understand that fat fingers make mistakes. E and F are pretty close on the key board


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Dr A, the " ..you owe it to the sport " is BS, you more than gave this sport your fair share during your stint as NRC President..I for one Thank You for judging the National Open, as you know the judging pool of qualified judges is almost to the point of being able to be listed on a post it note...


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

EdA said:


> It appears that I cannot spell, not sure how the f got there in the title, anyone remember how to edit the title?


If that's your only mistake today you will have done well. 
Looking forward to your posts. This forum needs more content about *RETRIEVERS!!!*


----------



## Gary M (Dec 5, 2008)

Great idea Doc! I’m sure you could write a book about your experience and persepective.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Watching from the cheap seats (blog) it looked like a lot of thought went into ensuring the dogs didn't get hypothermic (too much swimming in those cold temps.) while still providing challenging and worthy tests.

I appreciate judges who put the dogs well being as a priority.


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

And women are supposed to be the masters at teasing, Honcho III??!!

This thread will having checking in more regularly.

Thanks,

Tom


----------



## big trax (Mar 31, 2015)

Can't wait to read it Ed. A!


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Thanks Dr. Ed. Having followed the blog and the many FB posts, there were some cold (and often unthanked) people braving the elements to keep the Internet gallery informed. It will be interesting to read a judge's perspective.


----------



## Reginald (Apr 18, 2018)

EdA said:


> I think a new thread will make better continuity. My posts might be short or lengthy depending on what pops into my head when I am feeling literary.
> 
> I was first asked to take on this judging assignment in 1988, at the time I declined for a number of reasons. The invitation was repeated regularly but I always had an excuse until they finally quit asking. Then a friend and former training partner moved back to Texas and asked me again. I told her to let me think about it for awhile. My Holland was approaching retirement so I could not invoke the I don’t want to miss a National excuse. I floated the idea to my closest confidant, my wife Jan, and training mentor and training partner who ganged up on me and said various things like “you have to” and “you owe it to the sport”. I reluctantly agreed with the backup excuse as long as my health is good which at my age can be problematical.
> 
> If if you like this approach and are patient I will finish this before I finish Honcho Part III.


Can we ask questions?


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

Dr Ed. This great of you to do so we can get an understanding of what goes on behind the scenes in set ups and logistics. Especially when the weather is such a challenge.
thank you very much,

Jeff


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Reginald said:


> Can we ask questions?


Of course, the limiting factor being my ability to adequately answer them.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Well??? When does it begin?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

The Judges:
The judges come from the three time zones where the National is not held. The time zones are different for the NRC and NARC. The NRC Central time zone excludes Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota which are lumped together with the Mountain Time Zone creating for the NRC the West Central Time Zone. It is NRC policy that one of the judges have previous National experience which includes being a judge, Chief Marshall, or Chairman for a previous National. In our case that was me who has served as a Committee Chairman, Chief Marshall, Field Trial Chairman, and President of the NRC from 1984-2004 and Charles who was Chairman for an NARC in Sun Valley ID. The importance of this is that Nationals are not judged like weekend field trials. 
Co-judges:
The three of us arrived in Paducah Saturday November 3 not sure what to expect. My Co-conspirators Charles Tyson from the Pacific Time Zone and David Opseth from the Eastern Time Zone. I have known Charles for about 30 years, have run under him several times, and consider him one of the better judges. I did not know David personally but mutual friends from the East assured me that I would like him. We met Sunday morning for breakfast and it was immediately apparent to me that we shared similar goals and philosophies. We toured the grounds (much more to come on that) and exchanged ideas in generalities. All of us have previous National experience as workers and competitors so our view of this National was shared, we wanted this to be a National that future judges would aspire to duplicate or exceed. In that we had lots of help from lots of dedicated people. We agreed that among our priorities was to get along and that exceeded my expectations. It was reported to me that several thought Charles and I would not get along which I immediately dismissed and history supported that. Indeed the opposite happened as the three of us formed a unified voice and became friends for life. We had fun, something I never expected. On day 4 of setup we were still laughing and smiling, I told the assembled setup crew that I had been involved in setup more times than I can remember and we never had this much fun especially on day 4. David and I named Charles The General because of his attention to detail. I have considered myself detail oriented but Charles exceeded me by a wide margin. We named David The Captain because he is a Captain, front seat on a big Boeing 777 flying International. He was also our driver (he only got us lost once) and the person who on Day 2 knew where North was and knew where the sun would be. 

More later, too wordy or would you like more, there is plenty.


----------



## JamesTannery (Jul 29, 2006)

I'm actually glued to my computer screen.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

EdA said:


> More later, too wordy or would you like more, there is plenty.


Yes, More please.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Ed 

Would be very interested to read about your philosophy - as a group - about callbacks. 

Ted


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Judging
Our general philosophy was in line with long standing National tradition, that dogs are eliminated after two significant mistakes but a failure is still a failure previous work notwithstanding. We agreed that it was important to impose the same penalty for mistakes in a later series that we imposed in an earlier series. This is not always the case at Nationals. Mistakes include prolonged hunts especially out of the area hunts, handles, and repetitive line manner violations. We wanted contestants to wonder why they were still in not why they were dropped. We promised Chief Marshall Mark Medford and Co-Chief Marshall Phil Heye that we would have callbacks done by 7 PM everyday and we adhered to that. We went through our books page by page and made a list of definite ins, definite outs, and on the bubble. It was important to compare the work of the bubble dogs to the definite outs so that we would be fair and consistent with callbacks. It was our policy to not drop dogs based on previous work after a series in which their work was acceptable, this seems like common sense but not always adhered to. While it is accepted that it only takes one judge to call a dog back we chose to do things by consensus, we had a few discussions but resolved those quickly.


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

EdA said:


> It was our policy to not drop dogs based on previous work after a series in which their work was acceptable, this seems like common sense but not always adhered to.


Excellent point.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> a failure is still a failure previous work notwithstanding. .



Could you elaborate on this? 

Thanks in advance

Ted


----------



## wetdog (May 2, 2010)

Thanks for taking the time to do this Dr. Ed! I am also glued to this thread. I have my own observations and questions as to how the nationals I have been to were run and also how to become a better judge. Thank you again!


----------



## wetdog (May 2, 2010)

> We wanted contestants to wonder why they were still in not why they were dropped.
> 
> 
> > Love it! Guess I still cannot figure out how to quote a portion of a post .


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Could you elaborate on this?
> 
> Thanks in advance
> 
> Ted


Switching (we had one), returning to an old fall and hunting (we had some very close, several back to old falls but did not stay there), failure to enter the water on a water blind, out of control (ie refusing many whistles and/or casts on a blind or when handling on a mark), failing 2 of 3 birds on a triple by handling and excessive hunting clearly out of the area of the fall. For obvious reasons people are reluctant to handle especially early in the trial but most make the decision too late to salvage anything. We considered a good handle when the dog indicated some semblance of a mark and was handled to the bird. What I call blank out handles (when the dog went nowhere near the bird) usually look good on paper because since the dog has no indication of a mark they handle compliantly. We did not consider those good handles but rather the handler salvaging the best they could. Nevertheless handles count as a mistake and if repeated justify elimination from the stake.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> Switching (we had one), returning to an old fall and hunting (we had some very close, several back to old falls but did not stay there), failure to enter the water on a water blind, out of control (ie refusing many whistles and/or casts on a blind or when handling on a mark), failing 2 of 3 birds on a triple by handling and excessive hunting clearly out of the area of the fall. For obvious reasons people are reluctant to handle especially early in the trial but most make the decision too late to salvage anything. We considered a good handle when the dog indicated some semblance of a mark and was handled to the bird. What I call blank out handles (when the dog went nowhere near the bird) usually look good on paper because since the dog has no indication of a mark they handle compliantly. We did not consider those good handles but rather the handler salvaging the best they could. Nevertheless handles count as a mistake and if repeated justify elimination from the stake.


Followup 

1. Stupid hunt, followed by good handle = 1 Big Mistake?
2. Stupid hunt, followed by ugly handle = 1 Big Mistake or 2?
3. Failure to get in water on water blind = Elimination?

Ted


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Followup
> 
> 1. Stupid hunt, followed by good handle = 1 Big Mistake?
> 2. Stupid hunt, followed by ugly handle = 1 Big Mistake or 2?
> ...


1. yes
2. could be either depending on how severe and other work considered.
long stupid hunt and eventually finds the bird on one mark, handle on another probably 2 big mistakes but other work and work of other dogs would factor in
3. yes


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

The Grounds

Western Kentucky Wildlife Management Area. This is a state managed area which is used for multiple public purposes including pointing dog and retriever competitions. A beautiful area with rolling hills, many varieties of land cover, cover changes, and managed row crop areas. Manager Tim Kreher and NRC President Mitch Patterson did a spectacular job preparing the land areas. The water is man made consisting of ponds with irregular shorelines. There is no cover in the water.


----------



## MissSkeeter (May 17, 2013)

EdA said:


> Mistakes include prolonged hunts especially out of the area hunts, handles, and _*repetitive line manner violations.*_ .


Can you give some specific examples of repetitive line manner violations?

THANKS!


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

MissSkeeter said:


> Can you give some specific examples of repetitive line manner violations?
> 
> THANKS!


vocalizing on line when the birds are being thrown, roughly handling birds and/or reluctance to give them up, extreme creeping and general unruliness on line


----------



## Gawthorpe (Oct 4, 2007)

I like to refresh myself with the rule book before I judge. My most recent aha was "duck must be returned tenderly to hand." I think this is something that has taken a back seat and should not have. PS I probably don't have the exact quote.


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

Gawthorpe said:


> I like to refresh myself with the rule book before I judge. My most recent aha was "duck must be returned tenderly to hand." I think this is something that has taken a back seat and should not have. PS I probably don't have the exact quote.


Here it is

Delivery of the bird should be made to the handler directly, upon return from the retrieve; it should be given up willingly. A dog should not drop the bird before delivering it; and he should not “freeze,’’ or be unwilling to give it up. He should not jump after the bird, once the handler has taken it from him. Penalties for faulty delivery may range from minor, for an isolated minor offense, to elimination from the stake, either for a severe “freeze’’ or because of repeated moderate infractions.


----------



## Gary M (Dec 5, 2008)

Doc, When it came time to determine the winner, without getting into particulars, was it an easy decision for the three judges? From the blog summaries, it appeared like there were a number of dogs in good standing thru the 10th. Also, if you could describe some of the things that stoodout with Team Google and Alan, what were they? Thanks in advance!


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

He had the best marks or equaled the best marks in every marking series. He stomped 8,9, and 10 having the best job in 10. We had been watching him and knew the only way for someone to beat him was for him to stumble badly in 9 and/or 10. After he had a spectacular job in 10 we gave each other thumbs up and mouthed "93". It was that easy. He is a very intense dog on line and stares at the guns/birds reminding me a bit of my Percy (FC-AFC Trumarc's Hot Pursuit). He turned in quite an impressive performance, he was definitely tuned in and he and Alan worked well together, a popular win for both.


----------



## Peter Balzer (Mar 15, 2014)

Was there anything that you learned or had an "ah ha" moment while in the judges seat of this national that you hadn't encountered or thought of in your previous nationals as a competitor, chairman etc?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Setup

We arrived Monday morning greeted by lots of vehicles and people. It was our wish to begin the week working on Series 1-4 which is critical to getting the National off to a good start. It is imperative to avoid splitting tests early in the trial because once you get behind you never catch up and any move consumes 1-2 hours of dog running time hence or decision to do a land double only in the first so that we would be sure to finish. The timing we did for 2 different double blinds gave us confidence that we could run as many as 100 dogs and still finish. Our established goal from Co-Chief Marshalls Mark Medford and Phil Heye was to have completed 3 series in the first two days. We had to have opposite wind alternatives for every series and sometimes more options than that. In Siren field we set up 1,4, and a land quad which could have been 8,9 or 10. Because we would potentially use both sides of the road parking and gallery placement was easier for everyone. Unfortunately rain arrived about 2 PM Monday and we quit before finalizing Series 4 marks with an alternate wind. Fortunately we did not have to use that test which none of us liked. Fortunately the wind was perfect for the first and fourth that we ultimately did both being our favorites.

Tuesday

We set up blinds for the 2-3 combo and a spectacular land blind which we never got to use because of time and wind. We moved on to 5, traditionally a land quad in a field that gave us 2 wind options, both good tests. We found the 7th Series water blind while looking for water marks for Series 8 or 9. 

Wednesday and Thursday

We worked on 8, 9, and 10, all scheduled to be marks. Two or 3 variations werein the breathtaking Power Line field which we unfortunately never got to use due to ice on the ponds and the wrong wind.

The Setup Crew

They did a spectacular job, efficient and ready to go, to single out one or two would be to miss many others. Lunch was provided onsite every day except Monday so the judges did have the opportunity to visit with the setup crew. We(the judges) had a great time and laughter was never far away. I think the relaxed friendly atmosphere among the three of us trickled down to everyone and as I told them on Thursday I had been involved in setup more times than I could remember and we never had this much fun.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Peter Balzer said:


> Was there anything that you learned or had an "ah ha" moment while in the judges seat of this national that you hadn't encountered or thought of in your previous nationals as a competitor, chairman etc?


My ah ha moment was at the end when the three of us, all with strong personalities, had spent 2 weeks together without a cross word ever being spoken. The moment when we looked at each other and knew no discussion was needed to declare the winner. The moment for me, upon reflection of the whirlwind 14 days, that I really had enjoyed myself and had bonded with 2 great guys who will probably have more than one reunion. Post trial I have received many kind words about the quality of the National which could not have been possible without the efforts of many many people.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Thanks Ed. Good stuff here for any judging assignment, weekend HT or National.


----------



## Reginald (Apr 18, 2018)

Since the weather was not great early on, was there any thought to a bigger swimming test on Saturday for the 10th with the temps being the highest of the week on that day?

Thanks


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Reginald said:


> Since the weather was not great early on, was there any thought to a bigger swimming test on Saturday for the 10th with the temps being the highest of the week on that day?
> 
> Thanks


The grounds and the wind did not lend themselves to that. I have 2 regrets, no big time National caliber land blind and no wow factor water marks. We adapted to conditions and grounds to provide the best tests we could. We did not have an appropriate place to do do a big swim water mark and the water was very cold. If that was our only deficiency mission accomplished.


----------



## Keith Stroyan (Sep 22, 2005)

I'm glad you did this thread. I'm especially pleased that you had fun doing a stressful job. That should compensate for the SoDak loss.


----------



## Bryan Parks (Aug 19, 2015)

Thanks Ed! Great posts!


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

EdA I advised you in the Spring that come post November there would be comments. You made one guy happy and in my mind you did a good job with adverse weather that seldom becomes a major factor. Walk in someone else's shoes sometimes.


----------



## Big Chief (Feb 4, 2018)

Tremendous thread. Thank you.


----------



## captain2560 (Jan 23, 2007)

Thanks for posting Ed, this thread has brought me back to checking RTF first thing in the morning.


----------



## saltgrass (Sep 22, 2008)

Awesome read! Thanks EdA always like reading your post..


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

Best read on here in a long time


----------



## Reginald (Apr 18, 2018)

EdA said:


> The grounds and the wind did not lend themselves to that. I have 2 regrets, no big time National caliber land blind and no wow factor water marks. We adapted to conditions and grounds to provide the best tests we could. We did not have an appropriate place to do do a big swim water mark and the water was very cold. If that was our only deficiency mission accomplished.


Thank you for the time you gave up during the National.

GOOD LUCK with Roger now that Holland is retired!!!


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

EdA said:


> He had the best marks or equaled the best marks in every marking series. He stomped 8,9, and 10 having the best job in 10. We had been watching him and knew the only way for someone to beat him was for him to stumble badly in 9 and/or 10. After he had a spectacular job in 10 we gave each other thumbs up and mouthed "93". It was that easy. He is a very intense dog on line and stares at the guns/birds reminding me a bit of my Percy (FC-AFC Trumarc's Hot Pursuit). He turned in quite an impressive performance, he was definitely tuned in and he and Alan worked well together, a popular win for both.


I said I'd shut up but I hope you, Alan and Google don't mind me saying - sounds like one hell of a dog to watch


----------



## TexasK (Dec 11, 2016)

Then what..?


----------



## captain2560 (Jan 23, 2007)

Guess I see where this forum is going when substandard master tests gets 22 pages of reply and the 2018 National Open gets six.


----------



## Reginald (Apr 18, 2018)

captain2560 said:


> Guess I see where this forum is going when substandard master tests gets 22 pages of reply and the 2018 National Open gets six.


Been that way for quite some time now Brooks.


----------



## Rob DeHaven (Jan 6, 2003)

You do have more people interested in master tests. Not really a fair comparison.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Five years ago this was a HT Forum. Still is. The way of the world.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

swliszka said:


> Five years ago this was a HT Forum. Still is. The way of the world.





Well just great! Now one of the best threads out there is getting hijacked into HT vs FT.
Dr Ed was kind enough to let us in on the his thoughts and experience of judging the Superbowl of retriever events and this happens. I don't care what game you play or whether you play a game at all Dr Ed's knowledge and experience is beneficial to all if your just willing to listen.
I don't even know why people like Ed even bother with posting here. Well I must correct myself I do know. It is for the love of the animal first then the challenge of the game. I try to stay away but keep coming back but every time I do I start thinking why bother. You hit the nail on the head, this is a HT forum.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Steve your memory is slipping. This is at LEAST the 2nd poll where the question of FT X HT participation was raised. Most do NOT do both. Some have done the HT and went on to the FTs. Different strokes for different folks. The apparent problem is that many do not know the difference and read the guidelines.Participation limited. I did both. Comments like yours are like boat marks..ignorance about respective requirements. The video/DVD world is here.


----------



## ripline (Jan 12, 2009)

I really enjoy hearing from experienced field trialers! A tremendous resource of technical dog training knowledge!
Please keep posting Dr Ed!


----------



## Gary M (Dec 5, 2008)

Not sure why some feel the need to take this thread off line. If you were being judged in a trial OR test, you would not be called back for failure to challenge/maintain to the line (topic of thread).

Regarding those who want to turn this into a debate, (us vs them) on a macro level, this forum doesn’t need to be an either or (FT vs HT). Plenty of room for both with the common denominator being a love for retrievers and the games we play in pursuit of chasing down dead or wounded game for nothing more than personal satisfaction, titles, $2 ribbons and the joy of training and raising the best retrievers in the world! 

So what if there are only X pages on the National compared to other threads with X pages. Quality over quantity any day!

Nothing but respect and gratitude to Dr Ed and those who contribute so much to our love of retrievers!


----------



## Delta Whitetail (Sep 1, 2015)

Thank you Dr Ed for sharing your years of knowledge and your experiences. Especially with the great ones that have been taken long ago. It allows the people that may be just beginning to get into the dogs and or the old timers that may of not had the opportunities to be in the presence of those fine animals, to be able to gain some knowledge from your experiences. Honcho comes to mind as he has had such an impact on the sport. 
Your advice on here is appreciated as you have helped many owners with sound advice as well as what you have given back to the sport. 
Always look forward your posts weather it be dogs or ball and everything in between. 

Again, Thanks for being here with us Dr. Ed

Chuck


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Delta Whitetail said:


> Thank you Dr Ed for sharing your years of knowledge and your experiences. Especially with the great ones that have been taken long ago. It allows the people that may be just beginning to get into the dogs and or the old timers that may of not had the opportunities to be in the presence of those fine animals, to be able to gain some knowledge from your experiences. Honcho comes to mind as he has had such an impact on the sport.
> Your advice on here is appreciated as you have helped many owners with sound advice as well as what you have given back to the sport.
> Always look forward your posts weather it be dogs or ball and everything in between.
> 
> ...


i am just taking a breather on the the 2018 NRC, the description and diagrams of tests are well chronicled in the Blog but lots of planning and decision making influence which tests were run. Wind, temperature, numbers of dogs, and time all influence those decisions. I hope to give everyone some insight into that with future posts. I am pleased that some find my musings worthy of reading.


----------



## Gray_Chin (Feb 24, 2017)

I also really appreciate you sharing your experience, thank you very much! I also appreciate some of the great questions from the group. 

I have a question if possible? Was there anything specific, from your view, that the winner or finalists did throughout the trial that continued to separate them from the rest of the participants? Handlers and/or dogs?


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

They're some of the most interesting posts made on here in quite some time. Thank you for sharing your experiences.-Paul


----------



## wetdog (May 2, 2010)

A question Dr Ed, did you, Charles and David discuss trying to incorporate anything new or seldom seen into your tests? I am assuming you fit your marks and blinds into factors presented by the trial grounds as the top priority (ie put the birds into spots that are difficult for a dog to get to), but within reason, try something you don't see often such as a cold honor blind, remote cast blind, wipe out bird, interrupted triple? Just curious. I know many judges when judging on constantly used trial grounds try to come up with something that the dogs have not seen before. Just wondering your and your co-judge's philosophy.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

wetdog said:


> A question Dr Ed, did you, Charles and David discuss trying to incorporate anything new or seldom seen into your tests? I am assuming you fit your marks and blinds into factors presented by the trial grounds as the top priority (ie put the birds into spots that are difficult for a dog to get to), but within reason, try something you don't see often such as a cold honor blind, remote cast blind, wipe out bird, interrupted triple? Just curious. I know many judges when judging on constantly used trial grounds try to come up with something that the dogs have not seen before. Just wondering your and your co-judge's philosophy.


This is an excellent question. There is one in David's list that I was expecting might be considered, which was the cold honor blind.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

wetdog said:


> A question Dr Ed, did you, Charles and David discuss trying to incorporate anything new or seldom seen into your tests? I am assuming you fit your marks and blinds into factors presented by the trial grounds as the top priority (ie put the birds into spots that are difficult for a dog to get to), but within reason, try something you don't see often such as a cold honor blind, remote cast blind, wipe out bird, interrupted triple? Just curious. I know many judges when judging on constantly used trial grounds try to come up with something that the dogs have not seen before. Just wondering your and your co-judge's philosophy.


I have never done a remote cast blind and never will. We did an interrupted land/water triple in setup as an emergency test when the long term forecast suggested that we might lose an entire day to weather. We frequently discussed a cold honor and when we did our Chef Marshall rolled his eyes, it was sort of an inside joke. We did consider doing one with a spectacular land blind that we never had the time to run.

So much of what happens at Nationals is wind, weather, and numbers driven. We were not thrilled with our alternate wind tests for 1 and 4 but fortunately had the appropriate wind to do our favorites in both series. 6 was a quickly put together land blind in the same field as 5 because we needed to get in a blind and did not have time to move. We finished 6 in a light cold rain with an uncertain overnight forecast which cold have resulted in ice and/or snow. The FTC decided on a late start Thursday so we decided to do a water bind in 7. Their was light snow but no icy roads but it did alter the blind as we had planned a long water entry off of a mound. The mound was icy and would have presented a potentially dangerous situation for both dogs and handlers so we moved the line 50 yards closer to the water on flat ground. We had planned to do 10 in the 8th, 9th, or 10th, again factors beyond our control helped determine the sequence. Two of our favorite late series tests were in Power Line field and Moonlight field, unfortunately the wind was wrong so we did not get to do either. 

We only had 2 miserable days, Wednesday and Thursday. The Grounds Committee had us under a tent enclosed with tarps and a 2 burner propane heater all week which made us less uncomfortable and mostly dry except for the judge who was to call for birds in the rain, a task which we rotated.


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

EdA said:


> I have never done a remote cast blind and never will.


I have heard this before from an experienced judge. His opinion was that it could be argued to be impossible for the handler to give the dog an initial line. I tend to agree and do not like remote cast blinds. What are your thoughts?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

wetdog said:


> A question Dr Ed, did you, Charles and David discuss trying to incorporate anything new or seldom seen into your tests? I am assuming you fit your marks and blinds into factors presented by the trial grounds as the top priority (ie put the birds into spots that are difficult for a dog to get to), but within reason, try something you don't see often such as a cold honor blind, remote cast blind, wipe out bird, interrupted triple? Just curious. I know many judges when judging on constantly used trial grounds try to come up with something that the dogs have not seen before. Just wondering your and your co-judge's philosophy.


David 

At the 2013 National Amateur, we (Lynn Yelton, Al Wilson, and I) had an interrupted test for our 3/4 series. We started the 2013 with a land double, followed by a blind. I think we had over 120 dogs. I believe we started at 7 am and finished around 8 pm that Sunday. The following Monday, we shot a double (with the long retired bird across water), had the handlers pull their dogs off the marks and run a short water blind.

Until you go through the process, you don't realize how time drives all of your decisions. 

Ted


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

bjoiner said:


> I have heard this before from an experienced judge. His opinion was that it could be argued to be impossible for the handler to give the dog an initial line. I tend to agree and do not like remote cast blinds. What are your thoughts?


From Field Trial Rules and Standard Procedures for Retrievers

“On “blind’’ retrieves, wherever possible, the Judges should plan their tests in such a way that they take advantage of natural hazards, such as islands, points of land, sand bars, ditches, hedges, small bushes, adjacent heavy cover, and rolling terrain. Despite such natural distractions, it should be possible, at least in theory, for a dog to “find’’ a well-planned blind-retrieve on the initial line from his handler; that he will do so is highly improbable because of those natural hazards, so he must be handled to the “blind.’’ Nevertheless, the test should be so planned that the dog should be “in-sight’’ continuously.”

I think that the language “on the initial line from the handler” makes a remote cast blind an illegal test since there is no initial line on a remote cast blind.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Time, the single most important factor at Nationals. Our goal was 3 series in 2 days. Double and blind in 1 and 2 or a double and a double blind in 2 and 3. Our obvious choice a double with a very meaningful retired gun, one that required some dogs to hunt, some to an extent that their continued participation was jeopardized if they had future mistakes. We finished the first series with good light and more answers than anticipated.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Tradition, tradition, tradition, I am a tradition guy. When I first became involved in Nationals in 1982 it was traditional to have 2 poppers and 1 thrower on every dead bird station. Over the years this has eroded and probably not for the better. While not our decision I liked the fact that we had 3 people at every dead bird station other than short birds where we had two but a double pop. We wanted our winner to have the opportunity to see all the birds, three and a double pop at dead bird stations minimized the advantage or disadvantage of changing light in November in an area with lots of big trees.


----------



## Nathan Beach (Aug 19, 2017)

Thanks for sharing very interesting


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> Tradition, tradition, tradition, I am a tradition guy.



To me, a more important tradition - and one which you honored this year and which we tried to honor in 2013 - is that in evaluating callbacks

1. Every dog get two mistakes.
2. A dog which has done good work in the most recent series, does not get dropped because of its earlier poor work.
3. A dog's mistake does not have increased or decreased significance based upon when the mistake occurred. 

Ted


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

EdA said:


> Time, the single most important factor at Nationals. Our goal was 3 series in 2 days. Double and blind in 1 and 2 or a double and a double blind in 2 and 3. Our obvious choice a double with a very meaningful retired gun, one that required some dogs to hunt, some to an extent that their continued participation was jeopardized if they had future mistakes. We finished the first series with good light and more answers than anticipated.


I really liked that 1st series retired, (maybe because I threw it during setup and knew just how hard it was.), it held up well all day. FYI the setup crew were guessing 20-30 handles on that test before it started. Having 3 people and a double pop, made it more memorable, fewer handles but still a lot of big hunts.


----------



## wetdog (May 2, 2010)

Ted Shih said:


> To me, a more important tradition - and one which you honored this year and which we tried to honor in 2013 - is that in evaluating callbacks
> 
> 1. Every dog get two mistakes.
> 2. A dog which has done good work in the most recent series, does not get dropped because of its earlier poor work.
> ...


I wish your #2 and #3 tradition would also be honored in a weekend trial.


----------



## wetdog (May 2, 2010)

So some more questions for Dr Ed (or anyone else that would like to answer): I am one of those judges with less than 9 points AA judging experience. I am still trying to define a "style or philosophy".  What did you look at to make sure your tests were not "over the top"? The last three AA trials I judged, there were less than 4 clean dogs at the end. I am a believer in "test hard and judge easy" and picking a winner was easy, but there was a lot of grumbling in the gallery. I am wondering what you look at in set up to get the number of successful dogs you want. I read in Ted's other thread about the basics of safety, dog seeing the bird and handler seeing the dog, but if you have those covered you can still set tests that are VERY hard. Feedback?


----------



## wetdog (May 2, 2010)

So tell me to shut up if these questions get to be a pain. I understand your philosophy, Dr Ed, on remote casts. How about wipe out birds? I haven't seen many lately and I personally hate them cause where the wipe out lands can change the test for every dog. What think you all?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

wetdog said:


> So some more questions for Dr Ed (or anyone else that would like to answer): I am one of those judges with less than 9 points AA judging experience. I am still trying to define a "style or philosophy". What did you look at to make sure your tests were not "over the top"? The last three AA trials I judged, there were less than 4 clean dogs at the end. I am a believer in "test hard and judge easy" and picking a winner was easy, but there was a lot of grumbling in the gallery. I am wondering what you look at in set up to get the number of successful dogs you want. I read in Ted's other thread about the basics of safety, dog seeing the bird and handler seeing the dog, but if you have those covered you can still set tests that are VERY hard. Feedback?


The gallery will always grumble about something. My philosophy if you don’t like what I set up next time you see my name on a premium don’t enter. I don’t think too hard should be a concern with dogs at this level, let the cream rise. Clean is a relative concept, we are still comparing the performance relative to that of other dogs.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

wetdog said:


> So tell me to shut up if these questions get to be a pain. I understand your philosophy, Dr Ed, on remote casts. How about wipe out birds? I haven't seen many lately and I personally hate them cause where the wipe out lands can change the test for every dog. What think you all?


I am not a fan of wipe out birds which are usually fliers because of the potential for inconsistency where the bird falls. However if faced with substandard water where setting up a quality set of marks is impossible wipe outs are a tool to have in the bag.


----------



## Reginald (Apr 18, 2018)

wetdog said:


> So some more questions for Dr Ed (or anyone else that would like to answer): I am one of those judges with less than 9 points AA judging experience. I am still trying to define a "style or philosophy". What did you look at to make sure your tests were not "over the top"? The last three AA trials I judged, there were less than 4 clean dogs at the end. I am a believer in "test hard and judge easy" and picking a winner was easy, but there was a lot of grumbling in the gallery. I am wondering what you look at in set up to get the number of successful dogs you want. I read in Ted's other thread about the basics of safety, dog seeing the bird and handler seeing the dog, but if you have those covered you can still set tests that are VERY hard. Feedback?


I had the pleasure of judging under a person who said to me, "30 years ago I set up my test the night before and slept like a baby. Today I go to bed and toss and turn. Why? I am not sure if I have to much or not enough because the dogs are so dang good". Oh how true this statement is. One day you think you don't have enough test and the dogs get crushed so the grumbling starts. The next time you have all the confidence in the world that you will get answers and you, the judge, get your backside handed to you. Like Ed said, if you don't like me as a judge, we all have a little black book, don't run under me in the future. 

I had a different mentor tell me once, after I was adamant we needed to scrap our WB, the cream will always rise to the top. 16 dogs to the WB, the first 6 were pick ups, then all of a sudden guess what, the cream started to rise. We went to the WM's with 9 dogs. 

Both Dr. Ed and Mr. Shih have mentioned many positive things. The two that always kill me is, placing a station right against the eastern tree line, the 2nd, shaky LM's get carried to the LB run a perfectly executed LB and get dropped because of my marks.


----------



## Reginald (Apr 18, 2018)

EdA said:


> I am not a fan of wipe out birds which are usually fliers because of the potential for inconsistency where the bird falls. However if faced with substandard water where setting up a quality set of marks is impossible wipe outs are a tool to have in the bag.


I dislike wipe out birds because I believe it hinders the dogs a ability to focus on the key bird positioned right behind that flyer station 250-300 yards away and retired. Plus more times than not a wipe out bird is close and could be used as a breaking bird which I dislike as well. 

I ran under a judge once not to long ago that did this exact thing and then instructed the flyers shooters to "be sure you shoot 4-5 times".


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

I hope that this exercise has not seemed self congratulatory, it was not intended to be but I think everyone involved in the 2018 NRC is proud of being a part of a quality National, the event that is retrieverdom’s Super Bowl. The many comments I have received personally, by text, email, and phone reinforce that feeling. 

This thread has stimulated quite a bit of useful dialog about judging and our sport in general. I thank those of you who took the time to read and/or respond, that makes everything for our tiny little corner of the dog world better.

There is little more for me to add other than to offer my sincere thanks to all of those who made this experience (after declining to do it for 30 years) a memorable part of my dog life which is most of my adult life. It was a 14 day whirlwind, there were so many who worked behind the scene whose contributions were not recognized but the three of us knew and appreciated your efforts. 

Chief Marshalls Mark Medford (the most organized person I have worked with) and Phil Heye provided the judges with great information, sound advice, and support. Their support staff especially Kyle Broussard and Jason Fleming were our secondary go to guys. Jean Wu provided us with accurate drawings and timing on birds which helped make decisions about what we could or could not do next. Most of our contact with other committees was through the Marshalls but I for one extend special thanks to my Okie friend David Colwell and the Grounds Committee for making us as comfortable as possible given the conditions. We asked David to move the mat for the 5th series 3 times and he quickly complied with a smile. 

I could not end this without accolades to two great guys who were my co-judges. If I had been afforded the opportunity to choose my co-judges I surely would not have done as well. For me it was the experience of a lifetime shared with Charles Tyson and David Opseth, friends and comrades for life, thanks guys!

it was, I think, a remarkable satisfying experience for us all, a National that will be remembered as a good one for awhile, so for me mission accomplished. See you down the road!


----------



## Reginald (Apr 18, 2018)

EdA said:


> I hope that this exercise has not seemed self congratulatory, it was not intended to be but I think everyone involved in the 2018 NRC is proud of being a part of a quality National, the event that is retrieverdom’s Super Bowl. The many comments I have received personally, by text, email, and phone reinforce that feeling.
> 
> This thread has stimulated quite a bit of useful dialog about judging and our sport in general. I thank those of you who took the time to read and/or respond, that makes everything for our tiny little corner of the dog world better.
> 
> ...


THANK YOU Ed, along with your co judges for giving up so much of your time during the Fall National Open!!!

Happy Holidays as well


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

Ed,

Thanks for sharing! It is nice to get the perspective of an insider.

Tom


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

Ed, thanks for giving to the sport and giving an enlightening account of it. From a distance and to a know-nothing like me, the national appeared to be exceptionally well judged.


----------

