A question for you judges

[Graeme Parkinson]

Your right I need to do more hunting, now will you tell AnnMaree.

[Kirsty Blair]

From what I have been reading in the posts over the past few months, I have decided from this day forth never again to go into this site. The negatives far outway the positives.

Glenice McClure.

Minds are like parachutes; they work best when open.
Thomas Dewar

Sorry to see you go, Glenice. Everyone's opinion is valuable even if we don't all agree with it.

Kirsty

[Gareth Tawton]

Graeme and Wayne,

Nothing like an internet version of family feud. I assume Graeme you are always right its not just this time

Its fascinating to see the variety of opinion, usually with very good backing arguments. It wioll be very interesting to see the end result of our rule changes. Maybe we could have a calcutta on the result of that one

Gareth

[Wayne Parkinson]

Hi Gareth
If they had you run the Calcutta we would all end up spending a lot of money buying rules we really really weren't sure we even supported.

You did another great job on Saturday night and you deserve a big pat on the back.

Wayne P.

[Leanne O'Sullivan]

Gareth, I agree 100% with Wayne's comments. I can't imagine the Calcutta without your comments and wit. Well done.

Leanne

[Maureen Cooper]

Just love the sense of humour on this site, try training with Kirsty, folks, we are on the end of it every session! Must get her to teach me how to do smilies!!

Agree with Gareth that far too few judges are prepared to comment and then when they do we get such a reply from Glenice! Kirsty's quote was spot on.

I have found out with two of my All Age dogs that when in Novice I got in front deliveries and by they got to All Age they were lining up for the next bird, the multiple retrieves seems to cause it with the mad retrievers; even trying to rectify it in training had little effect.

Maybe WA competitors/judges do not get enough of interstate trialling but having done so in all states bar NT ( along with many others I am sure) it was interesting to see a competitor resend their dog twice when it went off line on a retrieve, ie call it back to heel and resend after the original command to fetch. I believe in Queensland one is OUT in this case. This dog placed.

Also I am aware that in Victoria you cannot give a line to a dog on a mark but again, what constitutes 'a line'? To me, a line means the hand is positioned either alongside or over the dogs head for a period of time thus defining the line but a quick bounce of the hand towards the mark and command to fetch is hardly a line. One just learns what one can and cannot do in each State and wear the penalty, I am not complaining but making the point that there are seemingly unwritten rules for some States and therefore these should be cleaned up via the rule book.

Thanks for buying Chess at the w/end, Gareth, she never picked up a bird all w/end! I was saving my money for Penny in Novice, then no Calcutta and she won!!! C'est la vie!

Maureen

[Prue Winkfield]

As I was competing with Diane in Restricted over the weekend, was watching the deliveries very closely. Diane is definitely not the only one with this problem, in fact 90% (including myself) have this problem and in novice we would all have been heavily peanalised for either coming to the side - taking the bird a fraction after the dog had got back to the pegs, etc. there were hardly any dogs that sat and delivered to hand perfectly. (This is one reason why I gave up running in novice of course )

[Alan Donovan]

Hi Maureen

Maybe WA competitors/judges do not get enough of interstate trialling but having done so in all states bar NT ( along with many others I am sure) it was interesting to see a competitor resend their dog twice when it went off line on a retrieve, ie call it back to heel and resend after the original command to fetch. I believe in Queensland one is OUT in this case. This dog placed. Maureen

In Queensland some judges will "no score" a dog which is re-cast on the basis that it has "Failed to complete the Retrieve", as it has returned to the handler without the bird. At Novice level a recast is usually acceptable. If a dog has been lined on a blind, immediately recalled and re-lined, it is certainly arguable that it should be eliminated on the basis that it has failed to complete the retrieve, and I for one would not "no score" a dog in that situation.

Maybe a consistent approach (by all judges in all states) would best be achieved through adoption of "Judges' Guidelines" - what did you think of Bob Tawton's discussion paper on the subject?

Cheers - Alan

[paul young]

why would you NOT want the dog to deliver at your side? especially on multiples, it promotes a smooth, flowing, performance. i think it makes the dog's job simpler as less commands/gestures/cues are necessary to focus the dog on the next bird to be retrieved, whether a blind or a mark.

in the states, this exercise (required front delivery) is reserved for obedience trials, and i think it's a good fit for that venue.

i don't understand this, i'm afraid. perhaps if i ran one of your trials, i could. i'm willing to listen if anyone is willing to explain this to me.-paul

[Julie Cramond]

I think a front finish looks pretty, but would enjoy to have the option of a side finish.

Personally what happens out in the paddock is more important to me than between the starting pegs, after all it is a retrieving trial not an obedience test. Let the obedience out in the paddock become more important.

On a positive note, I have noticed lately the starting pegs being more separated. I think we all should take advantage of the movement available between the pegs.

[Wayne Parkinson]

When the front finish was put in the rules the people involved probably never heard of an obiedience trial.
They were hunters and our rules state a retrieving trial is to match as closley as possible a duck hunt (or words to that effect)
I think the easiest way to get a delivery on a wounded bird is get it delivered in front..

I think it's harder to get a delivery in front when the dogs know there are more birds out in the field. I think it shows a refinment in the dogs training above the thought of just get the next bird.
The judges decide what the next bird to be retrieved is. It may be the next mark or it could very well be a blind to be retrieved first.

It's about balance.
Balancing a dogs drive to get the next bird with the biddability to get the job at hand finished.

People want to change it because they are finding too to hard to train for.
Next they will think making noise isn't that bad, it's about getting the birds.
Healing isn't that important, it's just about getting the birds
Unsteadness isn't that bad, it's just about getting the birds.
Crunching the bird isn't that bad, it's just about getting the birds.

We have dogs win some trials that are a bit slower than others.
They don't get the 10 points for style eagerness and action.
But they get the rest right and that's the balance. Then the best dog overall for style obiedience marking and blinds wins the day.
Take that balance away and you start to turn the trials into a speed competition.
If you want to start changing things that require obedience remove the 10 points for style eagerness and action. Then it will just be about getting the birds.


Wayne Parkinson
Backing up to the wall and waiting for Gareth and Graeme.

[Kirsty Blair]

Hi Wayne,

You have to be careful not to fall into the trap of assuming that people want to change the rules to allow for inadequacies in their training. This is certainly not the case for me and I'm sure it isn't the case for other supporters of this rule change.

Whilst I accept your argument regarding safe delivery of wounded game I disagree with your idea of using front delivery to prove how obedient the dog is. There are so many areas before, during and after the retrieve in which we are required to demonstrate the obedience and biddability of the dog. What is there left to prove by asking the dog to deliver in front before going to heel when the delivery from heel is just as neat and tidy? We're not asking that the rules be changed to allow deliveries such as those accepted in the UK. Delivery to heel still has to be trained and shaped to ensure steadiness and cleanness in the delivery.

Your insinuation that one change to the rules will lead to a degradation in the content and quality of the rule book in its entirety is, with respect, just silly. Please give credit to those of us who don't just think of ourselves but have in mind the future of our sport.

Kirsty

[Wayne Parkinson]

If it was that easy people wouldn't be throwing away points by not having their dog deliver in front and yes I do believe that throwing away rules that people find to hard to train for will lower the intent of the rules as a whole.

With respect, thinking that changing to a side delivery will infulence the future of the sport in a positive way is quite frankly just silly.

The future of our sport lies in attracting new blood to the sport and a lot of things are in front of the side delivery in attracting them.

I still haven't heard anything that will infulence me into thinking the dog shouldn't finish the job at hand before looking for the next bird.

No wonder Glenice packed up and left.

Wayne P.

[Kirsty Blair]

Where is Glenice??

[Wayne Parkinson]

I don't know.

I do know that Jason is here visiting and he will confirm that Teresa has just anounced that she is a supporter of the side delivery and I had better get off my high horse and shut up about it.

So we at Teal Point from here on in say change the rule and let peace reign.

Wayne P.