Written Tests for Judges

[krakadawn]

Received CKC's January magazine today complete with the Official Section.Field Trialers and Hunt Test competitors will need to carefully read how our game will be changed in 2008. I see Hunt Tests have 6 pages of confirmed changes-field trials about 3 pages.

A major change under Judges Qualifications.Each new judge MUST successfully complete and submit a mandatory open book test of the rule book prior to judging their first event.Existing judges will complete and submit a test every 5 years-passing grade is 85%

CKC's current process of having a couple of delegates in our province to gather feedback/solicit input is extremely flawed. These delegates have to depend on personal contact as no budget is provided to them and no delegate is able to get to enough events to share potential changes with competitors so as to have any accurate sense of how we view issues.This is not new-we went through this several years ago with CKC reps stating that changes were minor in nature(ie-change in point structure for field championships)-hardly considered to be minor!!

The purpose of this post is not to argue the relative merits of some of the changes but rather to draw attention to the lack of process used to determine HOW our games are played.It's amazing how individuals who have extremely limited involvement in these activities can bring into effect changes that may have extremely limited support.

Better put on your glasses and do some reading!

Jim

[Anna Scott]

Jim I started reading through them the other night and they had my head spinning will sit down with a highlighter and go through them one by one.
You are right the process is far from perfect but I'm not sure how we can fix it. I know the HRC has a running rules committee that accepts proposed rule changes from clubs and individulas. Not sure how often they meet but I do know that it's a 2 years processes for a proposed rule change to come to the floor of the AGM for a vote.

[3 black dogs]

Thanks Jim

We just recived our copy yesterday so I am going to to do some reading today.

I knew about the judges test and I had a chance to read over a copy of the proposed test this summer and I think it is a good Idea as we all know how vague the FT rule book is to start with and then you throw in everyones interpitation of it and a few who don't really know it who are judgeing and you get some very silly situations at trials. I think it will be a welcome addition to keep judges in touch with the rules. As far as some of the changes in the past I couldn't agree with you more.

Chris

[Big Bird]

I read with interest your dilemma (lack of a another interpution) with the CKC and changing the rules, and tried to reflect how our club administers rule changes. My immediate though is how will they get consistency with all judges if they make this many changes in a short period of time?

I judge in NAVHDA, and we have some 130 judges across North America. Another 50 or so apprentice judges. Judges do not receive compensation and to maintain judge status must have membership paid in full by Jan.1 of each year, and attend a regional judges workshop least once every three years.

NAVHDA events have three judges that come to a score on what they saw in the dogs performance. Of the three judges, at least one must be from out of the region. The region is interrupted as east, central, west, north and south. The philosophy of this is to have judges intermingle so that one region does not begin to have different rule interruptions from another.

Chapters and judges through the annual meeting and judges workshop present new rules propasal. The proposals then go to the NAVHDA executive council for approval and roll out to members and judges.

There are inconsistence interruptions in the field, major judges discussions but generally they are minimal, and educational for they judges and program. The handler gets one score from the three judges.

The judges workshops are a day and half event the review observed inconsistent issues, review new rule changes, and obtain input from those that administer the rules; the judges.

As a judge we complain about the demand on us to attend these programs, and depending on the location the out of your pocket expenses. It seems to work; yes there are errors, inconsistent evaluations even with three judges, but to date I have not seen a program that gives a more consistent evaluation of a dog.

Hope this gives some insight on another program. Good luck with your program

[TK'S]

Jim I think the change for what a Amateur can do is good . A person can breed and sell dogs and put on seminar or workshops with no problem like we had before. Before I judged in the states they sent me a test of their rules that I had to take it's no big deal just makes you now the rules.Does the Reps. that we have now not have input or is this coming from the members? Terry

[krakadawn]

Terry I agree some changes are certainly with merit. The whole discussion that surfaced a year or so ago about Amateur Status has certainly been cleared up and reads quite well.
At one point there was to be some 'grandfathering' with the approach to testing for judges.
My biggest concern with Rule changes is how they are brought about with minimal information shared prior to implementation.Case in pont is when the National Retriever Club who have representatives by province throughout were told they were just one of the 55(?) existing Canadian Clubs and therefore did not speak on a larger basis on issues.
Currently our CKC is not noted for stellar performance at times-questions now remain about the testing procedure--who marks these?
--is this in effect for spring trials?
--what are the timelines?
I'm really curious about how this evaluation will take place-not that I disagree with some form but just the whole process and content.
My biggest critic of CKC changes is how they go about disseminating information prior to implementation of changes whether we view them as positive or negative.Our reps may put forth an honest attempt but they are few and far between and at this point have not developed a solid web of contacts with all clubs to present current proposals-we often operate via the 'grape vine' mode.

[ducksoup]

Jim
Glad you brought this topic up -- I think the idea of an open book exam for judges is a good one -- there should be weekend judging seminars too -- I'm also glad to see Amateur status question addressed -- I'm interested in reviewing other rule changes that you mentioned ASAP (probably once Xmas is over)

[luvmylabs]

I know this is on a FT section, but having read the new rules for the HT, I am concerned that it looks like the distance limit has been thrown out in Master. Does this mean that hunt testers can look forward to getting Qual. tests with hidden guns for Master tests from now on?????:thmdn: :thmdn: :thmdn:

Anne

[captainjack]

Jim,

It looks like housekeeping items to me.

My question is why should the National Club be considered more than just another club ? What leadership qualities in the field trial game do they exhibit at this time that sets them apart from other clubs?

As a matter fact, what leadership qualities in the field trial game do any of the clubs exhibit? We do nothing in Ontario to co-ordinate the clubs or tackle problems that many of the local clubs are having. Was that not also on the agenda of the last Ontario meeting of the clubs - which was established to solve our hosting by Ontario clubs of the Canadian national? Dennis, Ron etc solved the financial concerns of hosting a national and that was the end of it. Many local and national problems exist which are far more important than the rule book (which many judges do not take the time to read before, after or during a trial.).

The CKC should not be criticized for trying to improve one aspect of their responsibilites ie. the rule book. If we as field trialers, local clubs and national club do not step forward and show some leadership. I am quite sure that if the national were interested and got the 54 clubs behind them that they could speak as one voice to the CKC and they would listen either directly thru Elio or our CKC reps.

My case in point - how many Ontario clubs and Central clubs send in nominations for a national judge or directors? Lets get our house in order before we criticize others. When I was a CKC rep for southern Ontario, I found the CKC and Shows and Trials divisions interested in working with our community and have no reason to doubt this at this time.

Lets get our house in order.

Peter

[Retrievers ONLINE]

Jim,

It looks like housekeeping items to me.

My question is why should the National Club be considered more than just another club ? What leadership qualities in the field trial game do they exhibit at this time that sets them apart from other clubs?

As a matter fact, what leadership qualities in the field trial game do any of the clubs exhibit? We do nothing in Ontario to co-ordinate the clubs or tackle problems that many of the local clubs are having. Was that not also on the agenda of the last Ontario meeting of the clubs - which was established to solve our hosting by Ontario clubs of the Canadian national? Dennis, Ron etc solved the financial concerns of hosting a national and that was the end of it. Many local and national problems exist which are far more important than the rule book (which many judges do not take the time to read before, after or during a trial.).

The CKC should not be criticized for trying to improve one aspect of their responsibilites ie. the rule book. If we as field trialers, local clubs and national club do not step forward and show some leadership. I am quite sure that if the national were interested and got the 54 clubs behind them that they could speak as one voice to the CKC and they would listen either directly thru Elio or our CKC reps.

My case in point - how many Ontario clubs and Central clubs send in nominations for a national judge or directors? Lets get our house in order before we criticize others. When I was a CKC rep for southern Ontario, I found the CKC and Shows and Trials divisions interested in working with our community and have no reason to doubt this at this time.

Lets get our house in order.

Peter

I hardly call these changes house-keeping!

Requiring all judges to take an exam whether new or experienced. Specifying how to handle on marks, Defining Professionals and Amateurs. Many changes to hunt tests.
House-keeping was what CKC called the Rule changes a few years ago when the points for an AFTCH and the point system was changed.

These are major changes-they are NOT housekeeping whether needed or not-whether correct or not. The process stinks!

The NRCC has lots of issues BUT the NRCC is VERY different than local clubs. The Directors meet at least twice a year to discuss field trialing in Canada. The directors are from all across Canada and historically were much more experienced than the Retriever Council. Today’s council is pretty good but in the past it’s been very poor. The NRCC has an Annual meeting-the only time in Canada when trailers from across Canada get together to discuss field trialing. The NRCC has the membership of all the clubs in Canada. The NRCC sponsors judges Clinics as well as supporting judges flying across Canada. The NRCC collects the Field trail schedule and produces an annual schedule card. The NRCC co-sponsors compilation of all Field trial results as well as statistics, the NRCC sponsors compilation of Canada’s Top Ten. The NRCC almost annually submits rulebook change proposals to the CKC. I suggest the NRCC is different than any other club in Canada. It has shown much more leadership than any club. Even when it had the support of cross Canada clubs, CKC has viewed them eihter like just another club or even negatively!

I agree that Ontario has been slack. That’s not so true of all the clubs in Canada. I have sermonized and editorialized on this in the past. I agree Ontario should get it’s house in order. As you know I have campaigned for this a lot but as you also know I have had VERY little support and NO leadership by anyone. However, Ontario’s apathy still doesn’t have much h to do with the issue here, which is the CKC process for changing the Rulebook is flawed. Do some research on the US system and you will see a dramatically better process. NO! I don’t want to be an American!

Merry Christmas Peter!

Dennis

[krakadawn]

Jim,

It looks like housekeeping items to me.

My question is why should the National Club be considered more than just another club ? What leadership qualities in the field trial game do they exhibit at this time that sets them apart from other clubs?

As a matter fact, what leadership qualities in the field trial game do any of the clubs exhibit? We do nothing in Ontario to co-ordinate the clubs or tackle problems that many of the local clubs are having. Was that not also on the agenda of the last Ontario meeting of the clubs - which was established to solve our hosting by Ontario clubs of the Canadian national? Dennis, Ron etc solved the financial concerns of hosting a national and that was the end of it. Many local and national problems exist which are far more important than the rule book (which many judges do not take the time to read before, after or during a trial.).

The CKC should not be criticized for trying to improve one aspect of their responsibilites ie. the rule book. If we as field trialers, local clubs and national club do not step forward and show some leadership. I am quite sure that if the national were interested and got the 54 clubs behind them that they could speak as one voice to the CKC and they would listen either directly thru Elio or our CKC reps.

My case in point - how many Ontario clubs and Central clubs send in nominations for a national judge or directors? Lets get our house in order before we criticize others. When I was a CKC rep for southern Ontario, I found the CKC and Shows and Trials divisions interested in working with our community and have no reason to doubt this at this time.

Lets get our house in order.

Peter

Peter,
I find it difficult to believe that you and I would disagree on some of the content as posted-appears we do.
The changes are not minor and not grounded in a transparent process-which is at the heart of my post.
Did your club receive any formal information prior to the CKC changes? Did your club through it's members have an opportunity to reflect,dialogue ,respond accordingly? I can't answer for you but I can answer on behalf of our club and the answer is -NO!
Remember my original post did not reflect on the merits of the testing rather the relative process and the how as well as the why. I take great exception when players in the game are not consulted in any organized and grounded fashion for input.
You are correct that Ontario Clubs should get their act together-too often their apathy is so apparent on various issues--Nationals
--National Judges
--Posting results
--trial dates
--political issues.
I have always believed that ORFTA(Ontario Retriever Trial Association) waseffective and the catalyst in bringing clubs together to tackle the current issues facing our game and clubs in particular.Unfortunately this organization no longer exists. In recent years I have offered the concept to various folks throughout the Province as a vehicle to attain change or to set future direction.
As Dennis pointed out the National did attempt to speak and yes it currently is the best organization to do so as long as CKC would be interested in listening.Their approach to change is flawed and requires attention. How would you have received change to eliminating the use of ducks at trials perhaps to dolkens as been suggested previously? Would you then give them credit for trying to improve our game?
You are quite right in stating that we have judges who have not read or read carefully the current rule book but causing them to write a test will not bring about the results that we might want as indeed much is left for interpretation by individuals.
Should we get our house in order-absolutely! Can we wait until that is done before we challenge the decisions currently being made by others? My sense is NO we do not wait.
Ron and especially Dennis have always been proactive and positive in this regard-so you're right we have to expect others to get off their asses and join in-I have and I know you would also.
Have you ever thought of convening a meeting of all Ontario Clubs before we go south? There are enough items for the agenda to keep us busy. Perhaps Ontario could at least start to get it's house in order and respond accordingly to CKC. I'll be willinging to bet the majority of clubs will not view these recent changes as 'housekeeping'.
Asv Dennis said 'it stinks'
JIm

[ducksoup]

Upon reading the rule changes finally and rereading these posts let me throw my further $0.02 worth into this discussion -- I agree that Ontario needs to get its act together (we've got as competitive a circuit potentially as anybody -- we need to assure that it becomes so and remains so) -- and ORFTA was a catalyst for that at one time -- and these are MAJOR changes not just housekeeping -- besides the judges test maybe a judging book for Canadian FTs should be written (like what the US has) -- I hope that our Canadian FTs and especially the Ontario ones can only improve by such undertakings

[captainjack]

How did these changes take place? Who presented them?

They must have come from someplace. Were the CKC reps part of the process to change the rules? Can anyone answer this?

If they were, did these reps then contact membership clubs? If they didn't why not? Don't mention budget as an excuse as a short email to each club secretary is not too much to ask either from the CKC, CKC reps or national directors!

I remember alot of discussion and input on the definition of an amateur and that seems adopted as presented by certain members of the field trial community. How did this take place and did they get it right?

Was the information passed on to the National Club? I would hope that some of the CKC reps are also national directors. Did the national club contact membership clubs to give a heads up and give direction?

Have those who have complained thru this forum contacted their CKC reps or show and trial division of the CKC? Giving scare tactics such as the use of Doekens to make ones point or other drastic rule changes does not answer these questions.

Was there input when the point system was changed or field trial titles given to minor stake dogs given? I would bet there was as I recall alot of discussion on these topics. Perhaps, Ontario can ask - Heather, Bill or Mike.

I repeat - when I was ckc rep, the people at the CKC were interested in input from the field trial community. Changes were made thru this limited input. Who is at fault for the limited input?

It appears when we feel that the input affects us directly we get off high horse and contact them.

Are these items housekeeping? I guess they are not. I should not have said that. I should have said that that they are not earth shattering. Most field trial judges can read and pass an open book test - even us old ones! Do we need change in the process - we have for years.

I am anxious to hear your suggestions for change in this process. And will it guarantee any more input than the system the CKC is currently working with?

Jim, I will assist in anyway to get ORFTA back on its feet - if you think this would be a benifit to the Ontario Field Trial game. It looks like we have lost two Ontario trials this year and a number of other clubs are struggling.

Peter

[North of 7]

Just to add a comment. I would also like to see ORFTA again because in it's day it was valuable to the FT game in Ontario. Plus I think the natural body to take on the role with the CKC is the Nat Club with the input from all areas as they are in the best position to do this.

Jim

[3 black dogs]

If Heather Stewart is reading this maybe she can give us the low down on the process as she is the field rep along with Mike Cardinal.

This happened last year rules changed without the input of the clubs. As President of MVRTC I am willing to get involved to ensure the betterment of our sport.

Chris Bayles

[krakadawn]

Peter,

Some excellent questions for sure>
1. Recommendations for change can come from a variety of sources-members,CKC reps,clubs
2.I am not privi to who presented what. I do know that our rep from this area did not support the Judges testing and I believe this was suggested from outside of Ontario.
3. Yes CKC reps voted on changes but as you know they come from across Canada and as such regional differences exist.
4.Did they contact Clubs-not to my knowledge-certainly not the club I was President of.Were we asked for input-absolutely not.
5.Amateur Status-yes they appear to have defined it very well-it is much clearer now especially with Clubs and seminars.
6.National Club was not asked any more than your club was.
7.Was the mention of dolkens a scare tactic-absolutely not but there was a strong push from certain individuals from outside of Ontario for this previosly as you know.
8.Was there any consultation for the point change-certainly not formal-ie club contact.

Peter, thanks for your response about reviving ORFTA-perhaps by any other name as well.I did speak at length today to Bill K. our CKC rep about how to improve this decision making process. He agreed that often items are not shared ahead to provide any networking time for CKC reps-as well their meeting times are very limited. Bill is a good rep and I trust his common sense but the fact of the matter still exists that the method to ensure people belonging to clubs even get a heads up-let alone have a chance for input does not exist.


Are you aware that the Chair of our Retriever Council(made up of CKC reps) does not compete in the retriever game(attempt by CKC to provide an impartial chair for this commitee).

Since CKC reps do not have a budget perhaps CKC should send out proposed changes well in advance for clubs to discuss,weigh the merits of then forward feedback to our rep. At least in that scenario one could not complain of not hearing the proposals and having some say in the decision.

Do I believe change is required-absolutely and the change in process is what my original post was about. I don't have an axe to grind with CKC but one would have to be blind to see how little attention the Retriever Game receives from them.They won't even publish the top '10' retrievers for 2007 until next July-we are but a small small cog in the wheel.!

[Tom Murray]

Well said Dennis and Jim.!

I see on this forum where people are talking about how they say a copy of the exam for judges was passed around this past summer, to my knowledge the said exam didn't make it out west anywhere to be viewed, unless of course it was done in total secrecy.
Cheers