Among the RT rule review submissions is a proposal to altogether delete Rule 8(t) “
No Score - Where a dog has been marked "No Score", the dog may continue in the Stake at the discretion of the Judge, but is to be considered as a non competing dog. In subsequent Runs they must be run after competing dogs.”
The proponent reasons that “
For the judges to keep on allowing these dogs to run in All Age and Championships at the end of the field as non competing dogs, can result in a time consuming exercise especially when the Judge is running out of time. It does not matter how well the dog performs once it has been No Scored it will not be considered as one which has finished the stake/event. The Judges at their discretion, if time and suitable game permitting, may invite the handler to continue on subsequent runs. This would be good for the sport for Novice and Restricted Stakes.”
It's unclear what the author hopes to achieve by removing this rule suffice to say that the sentiment appears to want to exclude participation for ‘No Score’ dogs in All Age and Championships. Championships aside, I think this practice of exclusion is more detrimental to the sport than any other. Especially so for competitors trying to transition into higher levels and similar concerns expressed in the rule review submissions [1].
Regardless, it shines a light on this particular rule that is seemingly designed to bestow discretionary powers on judges to permit or curtail entrant participation mid-stake. I feel this warrants consideration from the competitor’s perspective in terms of
denial of service. I suggest that while these discretionary powers may be appropriate and legitimate for large Championship events, things are a little more complicated at Club event levels making it difficult for judges to solely regulate participation for the following reasons.
While it is true that ANKC prescribe the rules of the game, and Clubs through their affiliations pledge allegiance to the rules, Clubs are also separate registered business entities and as such are bound to comply with Australian Consumer Laws. These laws provide statutory consumer guarantees that, amongst other things, require goods and services offered must match their description [2].
By entering a club event and paying an entrance fee a competitor and the club effectively enter into a contract for supply of a service, ie participation in a retrieving trial at a specified level. Affiliated club schedules generally stipulate that the trial will be held under ANKC rules and regulations for Gundog Retrieving Trials, in which
Rule 35 clearly sets the contract terms for supply defining the minimum number of runs a competitor can expect to receive:- “
A Stake is a competition held at a Retrieving Trial and shall consist of not less than three (3) Runs, except for a Beginners’ Test, which shall consist of two (2) Runs.There shall not be more than 4 Runs in a Novice Stake”.
It is therefore reasonable for Novice, Restricted and All Age competitors (as consumers) to expect to participate in all respective runs set, in a competitive status or otherwise.
I feel this shifts any decision-making to curtail participation to the domain of trial management as much as it does a judge. More so, if clubs take into account that Australian Consumer Law also provides competitors (as consumers) with rights to cancel their contract part way through the delivery if service is denied, and additionally entitles them to claim a partial refund of not only the entrance fee but also compensation for any associated losses caused [3]. When costs of travel and accommodation are considered (costs that clubs know must be made in order to compete in remote locations) refund claims could be considerable.
While this may seem harsh, let us consider the drivers that motivate us (as consumers) towards trialling in the first place. Sure, it’s a competition and some of us are in it for polished cotton ribbons and titles etc, however only a minority of attendees will be satisfied in this regard on the day. For the rest of us, it’s the opportunity to take part and challenge our dogs and ourselves in authentic situations. Certainly no one is in it for the prize money, nor do we come to sit in our cars and watch. We should not lose sight that, no matter how expert we must become in order to be successful, what we are doing at club events is still simply amature recreation. Championships on the other hand could be considered the sport’s pursuit for excellence and justifiably suited to limitations.
Of course, the practicalities of total field participation needs to be taken into account as our proponent suggests. So what can we do?
To start we should definitely shift attitudes and thinking towards finding solutions that better meet with customer demand and expectations, as opposed to simply taking the easy way out. By this, I in no way discount the incredibly onerous tasks faced by judges to organise and assess fields of highly talented dogs and handlers in the sport, particularly in crowded All Age stakes. However, where there is a spread of abilities (as mentioned above) I do think it is important to enable as much participation as possible no matter what the level.
The best solutions must ultimately come from club and trial management in conjunction with judges. Levels of entries are forecastable. Run times are predictable (even hypothetically) [4]. A little extra planning beforehand to anticipate foreseeable bottlenecks could make real differences mitigating potential problems. I could list a range of possible tactics here but have probably overstepped my boundaries in these matters already. Maybe later.
Retrieving trials are expensive and time-consuming events to attend. I predict that any club that openly addresses participation in positive ways in future will fair better in attendances than those that don’t.
If these assertions are correct then total jurisdiction of Rule 8(t) becomes questionable for all circumstances. Perhaps deleting 8(t) is an option, but I would prefer to see removal of “
at the discretion of the judge” instead, so that the clause encourages maximum participation for all entries.
References:
[1] 2019 National Retrieving & Field Trial Committee Meeting Review of Rules for the Conduct of Retrieving Trials for Gundogs, Dogs NSW submission, ‘Rationale’ NSW Rules 38 & 107, pages 7-8. http://ankc.org.au/media/9251/attachment-7c.pdf [Jan.2019].
[2] Australian Consumer Law: A Framework Overview, Consumer Guarantees, page 14; National consumer law remedies, pages 18-19. http://consumerlaw.gov.au/files/2015/06 ... erview.pdf [Jan.2019]
[3] Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, When can you cancel a service / compensation for damages or loss. https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consu ... -a-service [Jan.2019]
[4] Stake Duration Estimator, Working Gundog Club, http://retrieving.org.au/ra/misc/StakeD ... imator.xls