No goes ........?

[captainjack]

Things have been quiet for awhile and having just finished reading the US Judges Manual, I have one question again about our CKC book.
Where did the section on no goes go?
For those not familiar with the term, this refers to a dog that does not go when sent and has to be resent..... usually meaning, elimination in an all-age stake unless there was some extra-ordinary circumstance.
I have seen cases in open where dogs have been carried and placed with out and out no goes (for no apparent reason). What is your take on this and how can you justify your opinion according to the CKC rulebook. What circumstances would justify a no go?

Peter.

[North of 7]

Peter. You seem to be right but one could look at rule 8.1.2 Judges shall have
the authority to remove from the stake any dog which does not obey its handler.
This is an area were one may have to do some judging. I myself will look for
a reason why a dog didn't go but in an all-age stake it would have to be a
good one. Honour dog interfearing maybe a gun shot from another stake judge
falling off their chair. All dogs are to be tested under the same conditions so if there is an outside distraction a judge has to take this into account to be
fair.

Jim

[captainjack]

Jim, I agree with your examples of unusual circumstances that affect the send to retrieve and thus resulting in confusion. But if a dog is clearly sent, what is the confusion (which by the way is no longer in the rule book).

I think you are stretching looking for something in the rule book to justify excusing the dog - it is not there. Where did it go?

If you follow your logic, that a judge can excuse a dog for not obeying, then why is the dog not excused who disobeys his handler numerous times while under judgement ie. heel, heel, heel, heel, or here, here, here, here, here,?
or when we judge do we use the rule book?:worms: Has anyone ever used the rule Jim is talking about?

It's going to be long winter...lets have fun.... and don't take it, that we are bitching, just trying to get some constructive discussion.

Peter

[North of 7]

Not to say I agree or disagree but reading 8.1.2 that is black and white and yes it does give a judge the authority to disqualify a dog if in their mind the dog did not obey its handler.
The other Question I have is does this rule over power the list of minor or moderate faults?

Jim

[Misty Marsh]

I think that the rule book is there to provide some black and white judgement calls but unfortunatly there is a huge amount of grey that has to be interpratated through personal experience, knowledge and common sence, with a touch of humility.

[captainjack]

Misty, I agree with you and understand that there is room for judges to interrupt things differently as you say "using personal experience, knowledge and common sense, with a touch of humility." Unfortunately, like our dogs we all have different levels of natural and learned abilities.

Peter.

[Misty Marsh]

Peter, I agree with you 100% and have been on the recieving end of a few very poor calls from guy's who have a life's worth of knowledge. :rip: Judging in our sport is really such a strange situation, you can have a judge who has 1-2 year experience, or 10-50, and where else can you judge a buddy/training partner while also judging people who have possibly slighted you in the past? Mix all that with minior faults that are cumalitive, a vague rule book with alot of "grey" areas and you have the stuff that heats up message boards almost daily.:cheesy: It's a tough job for sure, just wish that it could somehow completly be black or white and unbias.

[Labber]

I think retriever training is part knowledge, part experience, part "art" and part common sense.
Judging is no different.
Both aspects are improved upon by a wide and varied experience.
Arguably, one of the most important parts may be the "art of training and judging".
Whenever anything "Artsy" is being judged, opinion comes into play.
This is where we learn to hate eachother.:)

[Anna Scott]

I have been watching this carefully as I battled this problem all last season. My feeling were when I asked the dog to go and he didn't the book should have been close on him then and there. I may have asked a second time but I did not expect a call back. Aren't no go's, even at the qual level a very serious fault.

[Misty Marsh]

I tend to agree, unless there are outside circumstances like noise, confusion etc.. to be considered. I see it as a trainability/confidence issue in the upper FT levels.

[LeeW]

Provided we are only talking about an isolated no go. Where the judge hapened to suspect an outside distraction should we treat this no go as no more than a cast refusal ???
However if this becomes a habit I would have no promblem not taking this dog to the next test...

[Lpgar]

Had a no go send home last year.....20yrd mark with blind under the arch. This is when I first noticed Maggs hearing was failing. A Whisper send with No hand...she looks up at Me as to say...what did Ya say. Said her name in a normal voice She trots out and gets the mark then 4 whistles the blind. But Home I go.

My thoughts are....as the rules state it is a serious fault unless there is confusion on whether a retrieve has been requested. This could be from a variety of causes....guns in other stakes....Gallery noise....Judges moving and talking behind the line....Some common sense and latitude must be given in the "art" of judging. A confused Dog is way different than one that is refusing to do the task at hand. Most judges I think can see the difference.

Gar

[Lenore]

I don't have any thing to add, I am too new to this to have an opinion.

I just want to comment on lpgar figuring out that her hearing was going. Good for you to look for a different reason then the dog was ingoring you. I found it hard to listen to some of the HT'ers down here b/c they would place the blame on the dog instaed of looking for other reasons for them being sent home.

[LeeW]

Lenore it is a fine line btween looking for other reasons as to why your dog did not do so well, and making excuses as to why the dog did not do so well..

[captainjack]

I find this discussion very interesting, but we did stray from the original topic... why are no goes not discussed in the CKC rule book? It appears that we do have some disagreement on how it is treated.
Anna talks about qualifying ... do we judge qualifying the same as open? It appears that some judges do. Is this the intent of the rule book? Check it out.
Gar mentions something very interesting.... confusion and Lee talks about outside distractions. Are they the same? Do you treat a no go on a mark the same as a no go on blinds?
Scott, talks about judging is .... , but does not talk about the rule book. As a matter of fact, I don't see the rule book being discussed. Yet, are we not suppose to follow the rule book if we agree to judge? I have never heard field trials and dog training as "artsy" and is it personal opinions or the opinions expressed in the rule book?
Misty.... you seem to feel that there are judges out there that play favourites or hold grudges. I can't agree ... most judges are harder on their training buddies rather than play favourites.
Judges do their best, unfortunately, our education judging in the sport is not the greatest, throw in poor grounds, poor mechanics, poor club help, poor judge pairings, and terrible weather and you have a disaster ready to happen.

Peter.

Just got a new computer and it took me awhile to get re-connected. Sorry for the long reply, but wait until you see my next thread. Dealing with POPS.... and I am not talking about "fathers' day".

[Anna Scott]

Peter i have to agree with you being a first time judge I went through the rule book looking for the information that you are outling, no go's, pops, noise etc, balancing tests. It just wasn't to be found. Or at least what I was looking for wasn't there. This brings up yet another can of worms, pairing wet behind the ears judges such as myself with the right experienced and knowledgeable judge. This first pairing goes along way in shaping a new judges future.

[Misty Marsh]

Misty.... you seem to feel that there are judges out there that play favourites or hold grudges. I can't agree ... most judges are harder on their training buddies rather than play favourites.
I agree with most everything that you have said, but would say that "yes" there are judges out there that have played favorites, and been harder on the loud mouth participant who they have had a history with. I'm not saying that it's right, just that a sport that allows people to judge friends will always be influenced my emotions and being part of human nature, just some can distance themselves from it better than others when they are in the judges chair, that's all.

[Retrievers ONLINE]

Things have been quiet for awhile and having just finished reading the US Judges Manual, I have one question again about our CKC book.
Where did the section on no goes go?
Peter.

It's still there!!!

Section 16.1.8 Perserverance

part (b) A lack of perserverance may become apparent if a dog after having been sent to retrieve:

(i) . .. . . . . .or does not go when ordered, except, .. . . "more included about confusion"
I judge this by watching the dog. If the dog is straining to go and is very intent/focused on the bird, I assess whether he was confused on a mark due to excitement. or not hearing, or handler fumbling. If the dog appears like he doesn't want to go he's out. On a blind, confusion is extremely rare but I recall once a cough and cracked voice which was confusion.

Note that at the end of this section the Rulebook says these are serious faults and serious faults are usually sufficient to justify elimination.

Dennis