Suggested amendments to the Rules

[Joe Law]

Graemep's point on Rule No. 1 is well taken. In All Age & C'ship events the trials have evolved into complicated games which have moved on significantly from emulating " as closely as possible those conditions which would be found whilst shooting". This is the nature of so many sports which have evolved from everyday activities: eg. equestrian events, archery, marshall arts etc. It is probably many years now since this rule was first written and its historical significance is worth noting and remembering. From a practical viewpoint for 2004 and beyond its relevance is hard to fathom - or is it that we just like kidding ourselves? Perhaps in Novice and Restricted trials Rule No.1 should capture the spirit of these trials and I believe Kirsty is making a good point to Bob about Restricted trials when she writes under the topic: " I am game - may I start with a few suggestions."

[Prue Winkfield]

Can anyone give an indication of the numbers of people with Retrievers who have given up trialling once their dog has its NRD over the past 4 or 5 years? In Vic, the GSP people dog but don't elieve there are many others.

[Jason Ferris]

Hi all

I was typing up my rule-by-rule list of changes (to reflect suggestions made above) on the weekend and have been contemplating rule 1. I agree with Graeme and Joe, and suggest that the words "as closely as possible" be removed from the rule. That way we still get the intent, and the historical context of the sport, but avoid the obvious gaps between trials and hunting situations in terms of distances, restrictions on the handler/hunter from moving to assist their dog, etc.

Cheers, Jason.

[Gareth Tawton]

Jason,

I think issues such a dog saftey, galleries and stewards calling no birds are probably all items for a judges guide.

I would agree dog saftey is important but it is also very subjective. What I consider safe someone else may not. It is not always possible to consider galleries although highly desirable. A steward may not have the experience neccessary to adjudicate a bird fair or foul. A judges guide would remind the judges of these issues, allow protest committees to have some guidance themselves when adjudicating but not force a judge. Our sport also need to give our judges some allowance and room to move so to speak.

Gareth

[Prue Winkfield]

Just another thought - if we want to bring in more complxity to Novice and I agree with graeme that marks can be longer but 100% marks and hopefully straight - no angles in water!, could we revisit making Beginners the basis for a QC that goes on pedigrees? If Beginners was three runs and you had to win (or even be placed) in two or three that would be meaningful and hopefully would encourage more people to enter and stay in the sport. One probelm is that it would be yet another stake for clubs to put on and as it is, we don't have a restricted at every trial in Victoria. Which brings me to the ten wins in Restricted - don't agree with that at all - run as non competitive or for a highest scoring dog award.

[Jason Ferris]

I think issues such a dog saftey, galleries and stewards calling no birds are probably all items for a judges guide.

I agree with you on the galleries and stewards points. They should be in the judges guide - must have had a momentary lapse in concentration.

I also agree that the safety point is subjective, however I think a carefully worded rule should be included on this issue in case it is protested.

Cheers, Jason.

[Maureen Cooper]

We have a lot of reading to do these days! Well done everybody. many of us still wondering why so few judges are commenting on issues though, especially when one sees the hits on a thread.

From my point of view:

No walk-ups in Novice, it has been discussed before as it once was done to howls of protest and a protest being put in at the trial concerned. I feel it does encourage unsteadiness in a young or headstrong dog.

No double marks in Novice. It is hard enough for some newbies to find ONE training partner let alone two to throw birds! Bear in mind you need a good split to start doubles so back to back throwers not a good idea, unless over a very short distance.

No 150 metre retrieves. The stake is Novice and the rule states.." it is desirable that the runs be no more than 100 metres" and therefore there is an 'out' if one needs to separate dogs by putting on a longer run. The rule does not say MUST be no longer than 100 metres.

We have all been talking about encouraging newcomers into the sport and here are suggestions to lengthen runs, put on doubles and walk-ups! Why do you want to make it even harder!!!

Agree about eliminating puppy stakes, teams,brace, derbies etc, majority just not viable and waste of space but feel the Beginners Test could be updated to three easier runs instead of two with no age limit.

One last comment, all well and good suggesting intermediate stakes between say Novice and Restricted and Restricted and All Age but you still need a judge and grounds, holding 4 stakes on one day?! Pretty hard so do you drop a stake?

Maureen

[Pauline Dunne]

I never cease to be amazed at the amount 0f time and effort some people will go to to fix something that is not broken and has worked very well of a period of many years.
My suggestion Jason is why not just scrap the whole rule book and you can re formate it. to suit what ever it is you want a well trained Gun Dog to do whilst working under Rule one of the Rule book.
The Victorian Raft meeting for the discussion on the change of rules was held on 10/03/04
Pauline Dunne

[Gareth Tawton]

Pauline,

Many of us who have competed in the last 20 or so years and travelled around the country, think that it might be time for a little change and update. Just because soomething isn't broken doesn't mean that you don't give it some maintenance. I might suggest that is all most people are trying to do.

I personally am looking forward to some healthy responses from Victoria given trialling there is probably the most healthy of any part of the country.

Gareth

[Prue Winkfield]

It would be interesting for someone who recorded the meeting (Margaret?) to post the resolutions passed at the Victorian Rules meeting - really stunning revolutionary stuff! From memory, there were 12 judges present plus their partners and a handful of triallers.

[Teresa Parkinson]

I thoroughly agree Gareth. Rules are by nature a reflection of their time and therefore need regular maintenance and updating. Little is to be gained from accepting things simply because they appear to suffice. Honest and objective appraisal on the other hand, can bring about improvements to our sport and its underlying rule structure.

I'd like to commend all those who contributed to the recent lengthy discussions on Suggested Changes to the Rules for saying your bit. As active triallers and judges, you have added valuable insight to this debate.

Teresap

[Jason Ferris]

Pauline

Unfortunately your post obliges me to step in as the bulletin board moderator for the first time. I do this with no small amount of disappointment.

While I have no problem with people expressing a range of opinions, I found the tone of your post offensive and derogatory. I believe it contributes little to the future of retrieving in Australia. As moderator of this site, I cannot allow your post to go unchecked, as I believe such posts will discourage others from contributing to the site. I am only glad that your sentiments were directed to me rather than another member of this forum.

Please try to consider your future posts more carefully.

Jason Ferris
Moderator http://www.australianworkingretrievercentral.org.au/bb/

[Julie Cramond]

If it was the 1st of April, I could understand the jest.

I just checked, IT IS the 16th of March.

THE YEAR IS 2004.

[Kirsty Blair]

Hi Pauline,

I don't know you at all but I am still surprised that you should be so defensive about the extremely constructive discussion that has taken place here. It is my understanding that this is the first time in history that open discussion has taken place, Australia-wide, on upcoming rule changes. I can't see that there can be any negative repurcussions from this discussion as it brings triallers across the country closer together.

Retrieving, like all things, will inevitably evolve and change over time. I think its important that our rules are dynamic enough to encompass those changes and that they adequately reflect the structure and function of current trials. It bodes well for our sport that we have so many people with the enthusiasm and foresight to make this review a meaningful activity.

I, for one, welcome your input into this discussion but hope that you will remember the old adage "attack the idea, not the person" and refrain from openly derogatory remarks about individuals.

Kirsty

[Peter Betteridge]

jason
I believe that you are being a little harsh in your appraisal of pauline's post.As one of the foremost advocate of change in the sport , I disagree with her analysis.However I believe that she is intitled to her opinion and I can read no malice or derogratory content in what she has written.she has stated her opinion and put her name on it.I dont beleive we should back away from strong opinions and I see nothing personal in her post.I believe heated debate is healthy for the sport.Gareth and I totally disagree on the subject of exotic game .It is a heated but amicable debate that gets people thinking about retriever related issues.This can only be good for the sport.Pauline is a well respected judge who has judged at national level.She has the right to a forethright opinion.her reference to you was as per your role as moderator not as the bearer of any revolutionary agenda.Lastly I would like to state that I support you to the hilt as the moderator of this forum and I commend you for the wonderful job you do