Bonnie
02-04-2008, 02:20 PM
As a judge, I am busy highlighting all the must(s) and shall(s)from the various sections of the new rulebook to find the definitive rules that could be considered as serious faults or regulations and directions that are inflexible. The rest I usually see as issues and actions open to interpretation.
Trying to understand and interpret the new rules would have been so much clearer with a Classification of Faults (minor, moderate and serious). It would have been such a help with consistency among judges in interpreting and scoring the now wider world of should(s) found in the book, as well as, adding consistency when determining the cumulative effect of repeating actions (faults). A Faults section would be so helpful in explaining judging decisions to participants. I have tried for years to get this section developed, but the need has fallen on deaf ears. It is interesting that section 9.3.15 talks of a controlled break as a minor fault, assuming, I guess, that we may some day get a Classification of Faults.
One of the new sections, 11.1.30 - Responsibilities of Handlers has some really confusing elements and statements, as well as, noticeable redundancy. I have been puzzling over what is the broad purpose for these new additions or restating of old rules. Is it trying to educate, clarify or is it to correct or control some behaviours or issues that has been problematic. My disappointment begins with section (c) where non-handler responsibilities are mixed in under this heading. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised since the lack of logical flow, organization and clarity has been a traditional weakness of the rulebook, but one could have hoped this new section would be different.
By the time I got to (g) (l) and (m) I was shaking my head. Section (g) appears to say substantially the same thing as (m), although (m) is broader and consequently of greater concern. Without any rationale supplied about these changes, one can only try to guess the reasoning.
I have always accepted that a handler could use a whistle sit when coming to line or on a walk up, on a flush and when handling their dog to a mark or blind. According to (m)(ii), the use of a whistle could be considered as an aid to control a dog and the terminology is “no handler shall”. Broad, encompassing statements like this weakens confidence in the rulebook as a useful tool.
In addition, I have often asked handlers to point a gun at the falls and I regularly do that when I am handling myself. If (l) means your hands need to remain in close proximity to the body/not project hands to assist dog to locate a fall, it would be difficult to point a gun at each fall with your arms close to your body. If (g) and (m) mean using any other equipment to aid a dog, then it could be said that a gun pointed at a fall can be an aid, so although it is a positive and necessary action in realistic hunting practices, it may be interpreted as prohibited by these rules.
I am left wondering exactly the purpose of (g) (l) and (m). I think the thread is preventing threatening practices and possibly lining before all falls are down, but who really knows except the few who recommended these rules to the Board. Once again, I believe that those of us who judge will try to interpret the rules in a way that is fairest and most appropriate, as well we will try to avoid confusion with handlers about our interpretations. Having said that I am once again frustrated that we don’t have a rulebook that will help us to be the best and fairest we can be.
Bonnie
Trying to understand and interpret the new rules would have been so much clearer with a Classification of Faults (minor, moderate and serious). It would have been such a help with consistency among judges in interpreting and scoring the now wider world of should(s) found in the book, as well as, adding consistency when determining the cumulative effect of repeating actions (faults). A Faults section would be so helpful in explaining judging decisions to participants. I have tried for years to get this section developed, but the need has fallen on deaf ears. It is interesting that section 9.3.15 talks of a controlled break as a minor fault, assuming, I guess, that we may some day get a Classification of Faults.
One of the new sections, 11.1.30 - Responsibilities of Handlers has some really confusing elements and statements, as well as, noticeable redundancy. I have been puzzling over what is the broad purpose for these new additions or restating of old rules. Is it trying to educate, clarify or is it to correct or control some behaviours or issues that has been problematic. My disappointment begins with section (c) where non-handler responsibilities are mixed in under this heading. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised since the lack of logical flow, organization and clarity has been a traditional weakness of the rulebook, but one could have hoped this new section would be different.
By the time I got to (g) (l) and (m) I was shaking my head. Section (g) appears to say substantially the same thing as (m), although (m) is broader and consequently of greater concern. Without any rationale supplied about these changes, one can only try to guess the reasoning.
I have always accepted that a handler could use a whistle sit when coming to line or on a walk up, on a flush and when handling their dog to a mark or blind. According to (m)(ii), the use of a whistle could be considered as an aid to control a dog and the terminology is “no handler shall”. Broad, encompassing statements like this weakens confidence in the rulebook as a useful tool.
In addition, I have often asked handlers to point a gun at the falls and I regularly do that when I am handling myself. If (l) means your hands need to remain in close proximity to the body/not project hands to assist dog to locate a fall, it would be difficult to point a gun at each fall with your arms close to your body. If (g) and (m) mean using any other equipment to aid a dog, then it could be said that a gun pointed at a fall can be an aid, so although it is a positive and necessary action in realistic hunting practices, it may be interpreted as prohibited by these rules.
I am left wondering exactly the purpose of (g) (l) and (m). I think the thread is preventing threatening practices and possibly lining before all falls are down, but who really knows except the few who recommended these rules to the Board. Once again, I believe that those of us who judge will try to interpret the rules in a way that is fairest and most appropriate, as well we will try to avoid confusion with handlers about our interpretations. Having said that I am once again frustrated that we don’t have a rulebook that will help us to be the best and fairest we can be.
Bonnie