Judging question -FT Control break?

[captainjack]

In minor stakes, you are allowed a control break. What is your penalty for a control break? How many are you allowed? At the end of the trial, there are 5 dogs in acceptable shape, checking your sheets none of the other 4 have a major fault, but the dog with the control break has the best work. How would it shake down? What is your reasoning and what does the rule book say?

[3 black dogs]

Another good question Peter.

Depending on the number of times the dog had a controled break I would say 2 times and your out in a minor stake as it is listed in all three fault catagories in the rule book.

If the other dogs have no major faults but the dog who you say has the better work has a CB where the handler has to give more than one comand to heal the dog in I would put the others before the dog with the CB as this is a serious fault. " Guidelines 17.1.1- 17.2.1 B and 17.3.1,G and 17.4.1 F

This is also where I feel we as judges don't pay enough attention to line manners.

Chris

[Bryan.M]

I am finding these posts Most Informative!! Thanks captainjack,and all who reply.

Keep it comming.

Regards Bryan.

[Labber]

I have won a Jr trial with 2 controlled breaks, and I, while judging, have placed dogs in Jr & Qual that have had a controlled break.

Some rule book stuff for arguing about.

10.3 The function of a field trial retriever is to seek and
retrieve fallen game when ordered to do so. As the
function of a retriever is to seek game only when
ordered to do so, the dog should come to line under
control and sit obediently on line or at honour as designated
by the Judges until released. The dog should
be under control at all times while under judgment.
When ordered to retrieve, either on marks or blinds,
the dog should leave eagerly in a reasonably direct
line for the bird, pick up the bird and return with it
briskly. A dog should respond quickly and obediently
to the directions a handler might give him and
should deliver tenderly to hand. Dogs are expected to
retrieve any type of game bird under all conditions.


10.4 The tests should be designed to demonstrate the natural
as well as the trained abilities of a dog. The
trained abilities should be more thoroughly tested in
those stakes carrying championship points, to a lesser
degree in the Qualifying stake and a still lesser
degree in the Junior stake, where marking ability and
style are paramount.


10.5 Accurate marking and memory of multiple marks are
of primary importance, but a dog which proceeds to
the general area of the fall and uses the wind to hunt the
bird out in a pleasing manner is of great value. A dog
that handles sharply and positively on a mark should be
given credit for its performance based on the relative
performance of other dogs participating in the test.


16 EVALUATION OF DOG WORK
16.1 Natural Abilities
16.1.1 The judges must judge the dogs for their natural abilities
including their memory, sagacity, intelligence,
attention, nose, courage, perseverance and style. Natural
abilities are of great importance in all stakes,
whereas abilities acquired through training are of less
importance in the Qualifying stake than in those carrying
championship points, and are of comparatively
minor importance in the Junior stake.


16.1.2 Memory
(a) Accurate marking, or memory of falls is of paramount
importance. However, this does not
imply that dogs which excel in marking shall not
be severely penalized, or even eliminated for
deficiencies in or a lack of the other required
abilities. However, in Junior stakes, tests are usually
so devised that marked birds constitute a
large percentage of the retrieves by which each
dog’s performance is judged.


16.2 Trained Abilities
16.2.1 Judges must judge the dogs for their abilities
acquired through training, including steadiness, control,
response to direction and delivery. The
importance of these acquired qualities varies in different
stakes. For example, a reasonable degree of
steadiness and general obedience are the requirements
in Junior stakes. A greater degree of steadiness
and some degree of the other qualities are expected
in the Qualifying stake.There should be expectations
of full refinement in acquired attributes in those
stakes carrying championship point
16.2.2 Steadiness
(a) Dogs on line sometimes make various types of
movements when game is thrown. Such movements
may be interpreted as efforts by the dogs
to improve their view of the fall, and some
occur through sheer excitement. Except for an
occasional change in position in order to better
see a fall, all such movements on line of a running
or honouring dog should be penalized as
unsteadiness - the degree of penalty depending
on the extent and the frequency of repetition of
the offenses. If the handler makes no effort to
stop or restrain his dog, a judge should not
interpret movement on line as a deliberate
intent to retrieve, since nothing was done to
stop the dog. On the other hand, if the handler
does make an effort to stop his dog, a judge
should assume the handler believed the dog
intended to retrieve and should deal with such
infraction accordingly. In any case, creeping or
jumping forward should be penalized as
unsteadiness and if repeated, and seriously
excessive, may be in itself sufficient to justify
elimination.


17 CLASSIFICATION OF FAULTS
17.1 Guidelines
17.1.1 Classification of the many faults which may be exhibited
by retrievers during the course of a trial shall be
primarily in terms of generalizations. In the lists that
follow, various infractions are catalogued as serious,
moderate and minor faults.
(a) Each fault should be considered as a single
occurrence, and only to an average degree.
(b) Repetition of a fault indicates a weakness or a
bad habit and justifies a more severe penalty
than an isolated case. The same holds true
when there is a combination of different faults.
Such repetition or multiplicity of faults frequently
indicates failing or an habitual
tendency which produces neither a finished job
nor one pleasing to the eye.
(c) The faults listed in this classification are limited
to those that are observed most at retriever
trials. Others may occur and this classification
may serve as a helpful guide, on such occasions,
in determining the relative importance of such
unusual offences.
(d) The primary consideration of judges in respect to
the importance of faults here listed, as well as others
which may occur, is to determine the extent to
which any and all such infractions would detract
from the full enjoyment of a day’s shoot.
(e) A judge may be thoroughly justified in moderating
a penalty or even in failing to impose one,
if there have been extenuating circumstances to
justify such action. Much can be achieved in
attaining great uniformity of judging through
uniform definitions of the various serious, moderate
and minor faults. However, the personal
equation cannot be eliminated completely since
each judge must determine the relative seriousness
of individual faults, repetition of faults, or
combination of faults, which occur in the performance
by dogs in a particular trial.
(f) The faults set out in these summaries are
extracted from the fuller descriptions set out in
front of the body of the rule book. In case of
conflict between the faults described below and
the rules set out in the body of the rule book,
the rules shall govern.The applicable rules with
page and section numbers are set out In parentheses
beside each specific fault. Where there is
a “cf.” notation it refers the reader to similar
descriptions of faults but with different degrees
of seriousness.


17.2 Serious Faults
17.2.1 These faults are usually sufficient to justify elimination
from the stake:
(b) Breaking – mandatory elimination, except
in Qualifying and Junior stakes. [Section 16.2.2
(a) & (b)]
Nothing about creeping mentioned!


17.3 Moderate Faults
17.3.1 Infractions in this category may actually be so slight as
to warrant their consideration as only a minor fault, or
they may be so severe as to warrant their consideration
as a serious fault. Repetitions of a moderate fault or a
combination of several of these moderate faults may
readily convert the total infraction into a serious fault.


Creeping, a moderate fault......if it is extreme and persitent, (in the all-age stakes only??????????)


(l) extreme or persistent creeping or serious lack of
steadiness combined with general poor line manners.
[Section 10.3 & Sections 16.2.2 (a) & 16.2.3
(a) - cf. Section 17.4.1 (f)]
I would say that breaking is a serious lack of steadiness!

17.4 Minor Faults
17.4.1 Either severe or repeated or a combination of these
minor faults may convert them into a moderate fault
or even a serious fault. Also they may be so slight as
not to merit a penalty at all.

(f) Slight unsteadiness on line including occasional
instances of slight creeping. [Section 10.2 &
Section 16.2.2 (a) & (b) & 16.2.3 (a) -cf. Section
17.3.1 (l)]


(g) Noisily or frequently restraining a dog from breaking
in minor stakes, except in extraordinary
circumstances. [Section 16.2.3 (d) - cf. Section
17.2.1 (o) & 17.4.1 (g)]

[waterfowler65]

I have won a Jr trial with 2 controlled breaks, and I while judging have placed dogs in Jr & Qual that have had a controlled break.

Hey Scott, where and when is your next judging assignment......lol.....

[Bryan.M]

Probably a stupid question,but what is a controlled break,and is it safe to say that dogs that creep are destined to be breakers?

Bryan.

[captainjack]

Scott, I believe that your interpretation of the rule book is very liberal. I don't want to get into discussion on all your points, but would like to correct one major point. Dogs have not placed under you that have had 2 control breaks - they placed under you and your co- judge.
Also, if you won a trial with 2 control breaks, I want to know who were the judges as I do not want to run under them as I agree with Chris. To me they are doing an injustice to those people trying to train their dogs according to the rule book.
If you were the only dog to do the last test, with 2 control breaks, I would suggest that we scrap the test and set up a test that was more reasonable to the stake.
Answer, what do you call style and mark in your book as style? I will give you my answer - style is a dog that comes to line, is attentive ie. picks out the guns, watches the birds down and is pleasant to watch. Dogs that come to line before their handler, prances on line, creeps while guns go off, whines, are not pleasant to watch and these are all signs of poor line manners and are recorded accordingly.:stirpot:
The rule book does allow some leniency to the minor stakes as much of this is trained ability as you point out. But, there has to be some standard of control and steadiness in the minor stakes as these stakes prepare handler, dog and trainer for the major stakes. But I guess if there is no standard in major stakes who cares?
Any one else care to comment?

Peter

Don't take anything personal, as the rule book does allow for different interretation of faults and penalties... so yes Scott can be right, but you can see how much fun it can be to judge if you do not have some pre-discussion with your co-judge.....and also discuss test evaluation while setting up so you and your co-judge can iron out your differences before you go with the test. Some judging combinations just do not work and make for a very unpleasant weekend.

[krakadawn]

Peter,
Id have to agree with you on having 2 controlled breaks in one trial.We certainly like to weigh up events on their own but having 2 is certainly an accumulation I'm not in support of. There would have to be very extenuating circumstances to allow for this.

As for creeping I'm like others-use a mat. Handler on mat for marks, dog on mat for blinds. Do I get totally consumed with a dog that moves alittle-absolutely not but to be clear we should strive for the standard in both training and trialing that our dog exhibits sound line manners and control but lets not get to carried away with some movement.

Here's something I read here in the sunny south this morning about marking:
"Did the dog mark the bird or did he just run a straight line". You might want to think about that.

Anyway-water warming up time to do some work.

Cheers,
Jim

[Kevin Hannah]

Probably a stupid question,but what is a controlled break,and is it safe to say that dogs that creep are destined to be breakers?

Bryan.

You could send a PM to Huntmaster :stirpot: :stirpot: :stirpot: :stirpot:

[captainjack]

Scott,

Just re-read your comment. You and your co-judge placed a dog in qual with 1 control break - I do not have a problem with that depending on one's definition of a control break, but that is another question.

Jim,
I do not get concerned about movement on line or moderate creeping, but we are seeing dogs beyond the level of moderate creeping in our all-age stakes which I have a problem with. The double line discussed in that section makes it black and white to the handler, " your dog gets to that point we are going to ask you to pick the dog up as it is unacceptable." You will be surprised to see how lienient I am with those 2 lines.

As to running straight vs marking. You can not determine whether the dog has marked the bird or was taught to hold its line. But, you can determine if a dog mismarked the bird and must give credit to the dog that runs straight, recognizes the area of fall and has an intelligent hunt.

The section of the rule book that I feel is most abused is. 15.3.4 b " It is proper to give the dog another set of birds if it is unable to see birds and mark the falls through no fault of its own ." This is done by us judges who set marks so far, use poor background, use poor lighting or have a confusing order of guns and quick throws as not to allow the dogs a chance to see the birds and mark the falls.

Thus teach your dog to run straight. I have been doing more set ups where these exact things occur and concentrate on getting there. I accept them as semi-sight blinds and go from there with no corrections on the dog other than refusing to handle. I also consider this poor judging.

Jim, I hope that you, Jim and Bev are having a great time south, dog training and golfing and telling lies. Continue to read that rule book, my eye sight and hearing is failing and I don't want to get into any trouble at Pine Ridge!

Peter.

[Labber]

Labber Wrote:

I have won a Jr trial with 2 controlled breaks,

Not saying it was right or wrong, just stating facts.
But it's good argument fodder!

Captain Jack wrote!

Scott, I believe that your interpretation of the rule book is very liberal

I thought I did more posting, than interpereting.
The only opinion I've expressed here is:

I would say that breaking is a serious lack of steadiness!

Anything else I've interjected has been more about trying to interperet and seeking opinions.

Captain Jack wrote:

What is your reasoning and what does the rule book say?

I simply posted up excerpts from the rulebook that I thought would be related to the subject, so that people who don't have it in front of them, can take part as well. If anyone sees a section in their rulebook that you think is applicable and you'd like me to post it for you, PM me.

It's a great topic!

[Labber]

dbl post.................

[captainjack]

Scott, you are avoiding the question....what is your opinion on control breaks in minor stakes? Would you place a dog that had 2 control breaks...would you carry a dog with 2 control breaks? Would you place the dog over dogs that had no noticeable faults, but whose marks were not a good?

As stated in A Few Good Men......I want the truth? and yes I can take the truth! (hopefully you saw the movie!):fencing:

Do you think that a control break should be allowed for an honouring dog in qualifying? The honouring dog was restrained from breaking by its handler with a firm sit after the birds were shot.

Captain High Liner to my friends.

[Labber]

http://www.canadianhuntingdogs.com/forums/imagehosting/2647b8dd9f8e610.jpg

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You,Capt. Highliner?

I'll provide my response if you provide your definition, just to get us on the same page to start with.

[captainjack]

Scott, you provide the definition, and give your opinion. I have no problem with how you answer. The questions are what is your penalty for a control break? Would you call back a dog with 2 control breaks, give a placement or cm? What would you do in qualifying with a control break (if there is such a thing) by the honouring dog?
You can define control break and as there are different degrees, I would expect different degrees of penalty(maybe).
Keep it simple and concentrate on a dog quickly and quietly brought under control vs the noisey loud threatening by the handler which some consider a control break.
15.3.4 d - under pre-trial decisions - what would be your opinion expressed to your co-judge?

Anyone else want to comment? Scott and I want to remain friends, but that picture of Jack scares me.

Peter.

[Labber]

I’ll preface my response with my experience.
I have only been judging since about 2003 (1 trial in 94?)
I have attended 1 judging clinic, and I regularly try to read and understand the rulebook.
I have judged 1 US Qual, and passed the US FT Judge open book test.
I have only 1 season of All age judging. The rest were Jr's & Q's
My Co-judges so far have provided valuable insight into the activity, which is a whole ‘nuther ball of wax.

I hope others with more and less experience offer their opinions on this subject.


What is your penalty for a control break?

My loose definition of a controlled break?
The Break,The dog has left the handlers side in a clear attempt to retrieve the bird, prior to having it's number called by the judge.
The control
The handler commands the dog to "Heel" or "Here".
The dog responds to the command, and returns to the handlers side to be sent after the judges have called the dogs number. (Or he's picked up and removed from the line, which may be a smarter move on the part of the handler)
In a junior I would be influenced in my decisions in part by the severity of response needed by the handler to regain contol, and the number of times it happened.
There are (Hopefully) 8 birds in a Jr trial where the dog can be steady or not.
Is a CB on one bird penalized more heavily than another?
Maybe.
No consistent rule on this should be made. IMO

I interperett 10.3 to mean an ideal retriever. Ie one that is expected to be fully trained.
10.4 emphasises a difference between all age dogs, and lesser stake dogs in trained abilities.
10.5 emphasises the importance of marking but does not make a distinction between all age dogs and Jr/ Q dogs.
Therefor the weight of natural abilities is emphasised by those that wrote this, and I believe the intent is to focus to a great degree on that, and trained abilities to be of considerably less importance in the Junior stake.


16.2 Trained Abilities
16.2.1 Judges must judge the dogs for their abilities
acquired through training, including steadiness, control,
response to direction and delivery. The
importance of these acquired qualities varies in different
stakes. For example, a reasonable degree of
steadiness and general obedience are the requirements
in Junior stakes. A greater degree of steadiness
and some degree of the other qualities are expected
in the Qualifying stake.There should be expectations
of full refinement in acquired attributes in those
stakes carrying championship point


So what is reasonable?

I would have no trouble dismissing if need be, a Jr dog whose marking is average amongst the field and has had a controlled break, both reasons entering in my decision.
I would have no trouble carrying a dog with 2 controlled breaks to the next series if based on his marking stood a chance of winning.
My primary search as a judge in Junior, is a naturally talented dog. A dog that is showing an acceptable degree of abilities acquired through training, and one that stands a chance of winning.
A dog with 3 controlled breaks whose marking is superb, and very much above the other dogs, could even win under me.
Just the fact the break was controlled, one could argue that the dog has shown a degree of trainability.
However, my co judge could very possibly disagree with me.
I would hope that we could look at the rulebook, if need be, and come to an understanding together about what our priorities should be.

In the Q, trainabilty is of a higher expectation and the focus has shifted from primarily, a natural talent in Junior, to a greater degree of trainability in the Q, but less than would be expected in the all-age.
So I would likely tolerate one controlled break in the Q, (but you can’t hold me to that, because one CB could be a nail in the coffin, the difference between 1st or 2nd, or it could be a win despite the CB)
Marking is still of primary importance, but trainabilty matters considerably more.

This is my opinion. I believe there will likely be a wide degree of opinion on this, from the people who don’t wish to post, let alone those that do.

My fingers hurt.
I’m takin my dogs for a stroll.

[captainjack]

Scott, this is a great reply and I respect the seriousness that you take in judging and understanding the rule book. I have no problem with your comments. But I have only one question remaining.

I am not stirring the pot and this is a sincere question which sometimes can be a head ache for the judge. What do you do if in your pre-trial decision making your co- judge disagrees ie. his or her opinion is on the second control break the dog is out and a dog cannot win a junior or qualifying with a control break let anlone 3 control breaks?

Any one want to offer a suggestion because this could be a real problem for the two judges?

I am still looking for an answer or opinion on a control break in qualifying by the honouring dog.

Peter

PS. I just got back from walking the dogs.

[Huntmaster]

God" i would love to get in on this one,,,,but,,,

Labber, I would run under you any time, sounds fair and you understand a dog is allowed a controlled break in JR, wish all judges did! :fencing: :nice work:

[Labber]

Huntmaster.
My answers are based on my interpretation of the FT rulebook.
I have not read the HT rulebook, and therefor I have no business commenting on it.




What do you do if in your pre-trial decision making your co- judge disagrees ie. his or her opinion is on the second control break the dog is out and a dog cannot win a junior or qualifying with a control break let anlone 3 control breaks?

Peter. It's a great question.

On other issues where there has been a disagreement, I have both compromised, and recieved compromise.
I'm also interested in the experiences of others when you hit an impasse with your co-judge.


Scott

[puddleduck]

The question is "a controlled break" "In minor stakes, you are allowed a control break"I believe therefore, that if the dog did the best work s/he should get the placing, if not the win because it is a minor infraction (according to the original question)

[3 black dogs]

God" i would love to get in on this one,,,,but,,,

Labber, I would run under you any time, sounds fair and you understand a dog is allowed a controlled break in JR, wish all judges did!

Tom

I am glad you chose to refrain. Yes Scott is a good judge and I will run under him at any level but there is a hudge differance between a HT JR and a FT JR I don't know if you have had the chance to go and see a FT first hand but I can tell you in a FT the jr dogs are running at a advanced SR level and some would be able to go into a MH test and fair very well. I am in no way knocking the HT game or dogs, I hope to see you out this year at a couple events and glad to see you back.

I still believe the dog with the controlled breack should not get the blue and would be in 4th or green if My cojudge was in disagreeance then it would be a long time before we got to go to diner.

I have been dropped for less in jr

Chris

[captainjack]

I am not sure that you are correct that a control break is a minor fault. The only place that you see control break is in the serious fault section. The only comment made is that it is not automatic elimination as it is in a major stake.

Just because it is allowed does not mean that it is a minor fault - it just means that it is not automatic elimination. Why is it found under serious faults if it is not?:worms:

Look at the section minor faults and examine 17.4 g. Look at the words "slight" and "isolated" instances of quiet speaking or hissing at the dog in minor stakes. Would you consider what we accept as a control break as slight.....quiet speaking? If a dog does this twice is it isolated? How about 3 times?:worms:

Think about it when the judge tells you that just because you got the dog back to line it was not a control break as defined in the rule book!

I personally do not believe in breaking tests in junior and qualifying, but if a dog breaks it had better be brought under control quietly. Watch your dog and if you see movement quietly say sit before it leaves on its own. Don't give it a chance to break. If it leaves and you shout and scream sit ...no..... that is not a control break,....... it is a break.

Just my opinion and this would have to be discussed with my co-judge.

Peter

PS. still no opinion on the honouring dog ??????????

[3 black dogs]

You had to throw in that element LOL

If the honoring dog is the dog who has the controled break and interfears with the working dog at all good by honor dog.

if the working dog has a controlled break causing the honor dog to break good by honor dog also.

If the honor dog is brought back to heel with one comand I would let it go and make sure to note it and disscuss with my cojudge wich we should have already discussed prior to the show starting.

Chris