2008 Retriever Field Trial Rules & Regulations.

[Labber]

Just got my copy in the mail yesterday.
So lets see if there is any interest in getting some discussion going.
I intend to edit this origional post frequently, with excerpts from the regs.
I will be deleting the earliest text of this every so often.
My most recent post will be in Italics.

PURPOSE
The purpose of a retriever field trial is to determine
the relative merits of retrievers in the field and to test
both the natural and trained abilities desired in a
hunting retriever. Tests should be held in a natural
hunting terrain and should be designed to test and
separate the competing dogs with the dogs giving the
best performances on that particular day being
awarded placement. All dogs running in the trial
should be given the opportunity to run as many of the
tests as time and circumstances allow and if
completing the tests in a satisfactory manner, shall be
awarded certificates of merit.

[LeeW]

They should change the name of the rule book to the suggestion manual

[Labber]

THAT"S A GOOD'UN!
:clap2:

[captainjack]

Define - satisfactory manner? Define - as many as time permits?

It appears to me that satisfactory manner and time permits are constant variables.

Would it not fairer to competitors for the open to start on Friday. This would ease up on the judges interpretation of satisfactory manner and would give more time to permit dogs to be further tested on cleaner and fairer tests. It would also allow for better mechanics as the club would be putting on one stake that day.

Poor grounds, poor mechanics and inexperienced gunners and throwers are judges worst nightmare!

Now lets hear all the excuses why this can not be done.

Are you sure you want to go thru the whole rule book Scott?

[ducksoup]

They should change the name of the rule book to the suggestion manual

I'm with Lee -- maybe they should call it a manual under suggestion ?!?!?

[Labber]

I'm just posting in an effort to stimulate constructive discussion. I'll leave defending it to the more experienced members of this discussion board. Maybe some newer trainers, who might not otherwise read it, will get the chance to.

I like the wording in PURPOSE.
I like the referrences to HUNTING and I believe them to be accurate.
We are training HUNTING retrievers, that are worthy of competition.

always trying to stay in the middle..........

Scott

[Lpgar]

If anyone doubts that Field Trial Set Up can Not be like hunting conditions they need to spend a day with Me and some of the guys who shoot with Me.... Not many days that don't include at least one 300 yrd water blind after someone Ass shoots a Canvasback or Widgeon with a load of #2 steel.

Anyway...I get your point Scott. Hopefully all who read the Field Trial Rule book will think harder when setting Up tests.....Planning for Time.....and Make the sport fun for all by rewarding good work in the Field.

Gar

[jiggy]

"All dogs running in the trial
should be given the opportunity to run as many of the
tests as time and circumstances allow and if
completing the tests in a satisfactory manner, shall be
awarded certificates of merit."

This stuck out to me with your post. I realize in All-Age stakes are a different story, but I get depressed when I see new young handlers run a Junior only to get dropped because their dog back sided a gun or had a big hunt! I've seen dogs dropped for one pop on a land blind in the Qual. after an otherwise great day up to that point, etc, etc. I don't think we need to baby the new handlers if their dogs fail a test...but what message are we sending when a "hook" is worthy of getting dropped in an 8 dog Junior? Let these young dogs finish if they run a decent trial and get the chickens barring any mandatory elimination issues. They're only green ribbons in minor stakes, so no "kicking a dog of out of the Qual with this greenie" issues as in the Open.
I solved my own problem last year by buying a ribbon that said "Participant" and wearing it everywhere. Made me feel good. :-)

[Misty Marsh]

I agree! What would it hurt to try and embrace new competitors instead of beating them down and "nit picking" them to death, the only thing that it will hurt is the sport! Were not talking about false hope, or even ribbons, maybe just another series!

[BROKEN ARROW]

jiggy,i couldn,t agree with you more from your statements in junior & qual. but here is where some handlers lose sight,was it a quick hook behind a gunner to get a bird or was it a huge campout behind a gunner?thenagain with a 8 dog junior ??i know i,ve been involved as a judge where we said to the contestant after they were dropped,you can play every series if you like & use it as training experience, there answer was goodbye!! or how about when you carry a dawg from a terrible series & the dawg gets better with every series & at the end they rant & rave about why they did not get a placing , gee they forgot about that terrible series where the placed dawgs had 4 decent to good series.and how about that pop in qual. was it the one pop or the 6 cast refusals along with it?? as a judge i have no problem in a junior or qual. stake with low entry numbers to let a handler know why they were dropped & let them finish the day but they will not be getting a ribbon!
thanks , john

[eden beardsall]

In Ontario there can be as many as 20 plus dogs in junior . Over half of them will be run by pro handlers. What then? Should all the dogs be carried if they do not do as well as the other dogs . You have to judge the dogs and make decisions and the tests must give you the tools to separate the the top dogs. Some times there are fewer dogs but the judges do not have an easier time just because it is Junior . Competitors want the coloured ribbons no matter what stake they are running .
As long as there are human judges there will be controversy. The rule book will be interpreted slightly differently by each and adapted to suit the test they are judging .
One thing is true there are usually two satisfied competitors at the end of a trial ; the one who got first and the second place finisher. By the next day there is only one as the second place reconsiders and thinks he should have been first.
All people who run these trials should take a turn in the judges shoes and see the difficulties from the other side. Good or bad we have to have judges to run the trials.May be in the future we will have instant replay and robot judges.

[captainjack]

What about us seniors! Why should all-age be different? The hardest workers in this game are all-age competitors, yet I have yet to read that all-age competitors should be encouraged by carrying and finishing more all-age dogs.
I see numbers in the 40s and 50s in open and amateur and end up with 5 finishers. I find this hard to swallow. Are we saying that our all-age dogs can not do satisfactory work? or is it time constraints? or is it unreasonable tests and standards?
What are the judges philosophy in setting tests up? Do they have one? Are they judging to see reasonable work or failure. Obviously, the rule book states that the setting up of tests is the responsibility of the judges and field trial committee. Does your club field trial committee ever discuss with judges the club's philosophy for the field trial? Do they discuss the club's philosophy in callbacks?
Everytime we loose an all-age competitor from the sport we loose an important member in this game. When we loose a new person from junior, we loose someone who may or may not stay in the game once they see the degree of work with their dog,their club and expense.
I would think that we may be encouraging the wrong end of the scale and perhaps this is a good reason why our sport is "so called" decreasing in numbers. It is not loosing new members - it's loosing old members!
I am not saying, don't be encouraging the junior and qualifying competitors, but we should be encouraging all - even us old farts appreciate being called back to the next series and love getting a CM as it shows that our dogs are capable and our efforts are being rewarded.

Peter

[krakadawn]

I totally agree with you Peter-we should be attempting to not only maintain a high standard but also promote a maximum number of finishers regardless of the level. I am a firm believer of the Host Club/F.T. Committee sharing their philosopy with their slate of judges.I don't suggest to hamper or restrict the Judges in any way but their are some clear messages that can be shared.For example, if our Open begins on Friday,be sure you have provided the grounds,people and mechanics to support 2 days of testing. Let's not get to the end of day 1 with only a small handfull of dogs that will complete the final series in an hour the next day.
We have seen a few trials in recent years where a 2 day trial was attempted to be completed in the first day-this was not a minor stake as you and I will no doubt recall.The very nature of the call-backs did not reflect an effort to fairly examine the merits of the field over the time frame provided.
A positive example of the above exists currently with our Nationals where selected Judges are advised of the National Philosophy and are required to sign a statement indicating willingness to judge and agreement to follow the philosophy.
No where in the above is the stance to 'water down' and accept the unacceptable but I do believe there is room to encourage a higher rate of finishing dogs regardless of the stake.

Jim

[jiggy]

You're right Jim and Peter...it should be all stakes. I have only had experience judging junior and qual so that is the only place where I thought I could speak out.
I've never asked anyone to accept the unacceptable, but to look at what dogs are being dropped for...some of which is ridiculous. A hook...nothing else, just a hook...and dogs are dropped. Seems some judges feel "all mighty" when they start a 20-something dog junior and only finish with 3 or 4-I have HEARD some judges laugh about this-how the test is really "eating them up". Sometimes that is the circumstances of the tests and the dogs...but other times?
I don't expect everyone to sit around to hand out blue ribbons to all, hug and sing kum-by-ya either...
There are few things in life that bother me...but I don't like watching nice dogs look stupid on a poorly set up test and I don't like seeing dogs get dropped for one or two "minor" faults...minor being straight from the rule book such as:
cheating water on the return (minor fault).
creeping (slight)
isolated instance of popping on a blind
occasional failure to take the handlers direction
So a pop and a couple cast refusals...add up to a moderate fault...NOT mandatory elimination? Of course depends on the severity...all very subjective.

Maybe what I'm getting at is I wish some people would pick up the rule book. I've only judged the Junior 6 or 7 times...but in more than half of those occasions I was judging with someone who hadn't read the rule book, either ever...or in years.

Good discussion...I'm learning lots. Thank you.

[Misty Marsh]

I think that most handlers who really have a clue know when there out of the trial and would appreciate the oppertunity to run a few more series if it's towards the early part of the trial, especially after travel etc, but going to the last maybe not. This would also greatly depend on the numbers running, complexity of the set-up and the judges attitude obviously. I too have witnessed jugdes loving the field being cut like a hot knife, but really serves no real purpose unless it's like a big US trial with 150+ dog's and it's a managability issue, which I don't really agree with either, run 2 days'!

[Labber]

I think a judge has to be careful when doing callbacks in the Junior and Qual.
A failure in the judges eyes is not always a failure to the competitor. For this reason judges need to hold fast to the standards they set at the onset of the trial, and at the same time try to give the benefit of any doubt to the dog.
i.e You can't carry failures in the hopes of giving a new dog handler a green ribbon at the end of the day.
Try explaining to a new person why they are getting a green ribbon when their dog blew the first test and smacked the last three. And their friend is placing with 4 passable jobs.
Being more liberal with callbacks in the lesser stakes also means that your dog needs to be every bit as strong on water as they are on land. A higher % of the field is there at the end of the day, and a good test on water is no more important than a good test on land.

[Labber]

1.2.2 A sanctioned retriever field trial is an informal event
given by a CKC accredited club at which dogs compete
but do not earn qualifying points towards a
championship.

When was the last time we saw one of these?
I don't think this involves picnic trials, does it?

[ron bischke]

PURPOSE
The purpose of a retriever field trial is to determine
the relative merits of retrievers in the field and to test
both the natural and trained abilities desired in a
hunting retriever. Tests should be held in a natural
hunting terrain and should be designed to test and
separate the competing dogs with the dogs giving the
best performances on that particular day being
awarded placement. All dogs running in the trial
should be given the opportunity to run as many of the
tests as time and circumstances allow and if
completing the tests in a satisfactory manner, shall be
awarded certificates of merit.

STANDARDS? Can't find them in the rule book,only the above.

[Misty Marsh]

My interpratation of that reg, which is the bulk of the CKC rules & regs, interpratation, you run the trial to get the seperation between the dog's in contention for placement. It does not say anything about not calling back dogs that the judges may not have in contention on paper, or the number of series needed to get that seperation. In a junior FT myself and Bobby Lindsay were the only two dog's standing after the second series (his was #1 junior dog in Canada that year) and my dog (#7:pukey: ). We ended up running three more series just him and I to get the seperation. Would it have been a good idea to run the rest of the entrants on the last three series, nope becuase in this case it was a mid day start for junior and it was hot as hell/late in the day Sunday, but if it's was a morning start, sure! In this case the judges made a great chooice! And in my opinion there will always be hard feelings by the person who does'nt really fully understand the judges critera for placing a dog in a FT and have the ability to make an unbias comparison of his/her dog to the dog's that placed. Most handlers would appreciate the oppertunity to run a few more series if the time etc. are available to do so.

[ducksoup]

In Ontario there can be as many as 20 plus dogs in junior . Over half of them will be run by pro handlers. What then? Should all the dogs be carried if they do not do as well as the other dogs . You have to judge the dogs and make decisions and the tests must give you the tools to separate the the top dogs. Some times there are fewer dogs but the judges do not have an easier time just because it is Junior . Competitors want the coloured ribbons no matter what stake they are running .
As long as there are human judges there will be controversy. The rule book will be interpreted slightly differently by each and adapted to suit the test they are judging .
One thing is true there are usually two satisfied competitors at the end of a trial ; the one who got first and the second place finisher. By the next day there is only one as the second place reconsiders and thinks he should have been first.
All people who run these trials should take a turn in the judges shoes and see the difficulties from the other side. Good or bad we have to have judges to run the trials.May be in the future we will have instant replay and robot judges.
Couldn't have said it better myself -- and speaking of Junior don't you just love the new JFTR rule change -- from 10 points to 5 ?!?!?