Now is the time .....

[captainjack]

With the end of the trial season, now would be a good time for all of us ( contestants, judges, prospective judges, club workers, etc.) experienced and inexperienced to spend some time reading the rule book.
There are a number of interesting sections in this book whether it be responsibilites of the club, marshalls, judges, spectators etc that are often ignored or misunderstood.
This forum would be a good place to share ideas in a positive fashion and promote discussion that might better the game and the sportsmanship that is an important part of the game.
I would like to start with section 16.1.2 and 15.3.8. Talking to a number of judges, there seems to be an interruptation that marking is the end of all and the dog with the best marks win.
Is it really that simple?
Please read these sections and give your understanding of the intent of these statements. Please keep in mind that the rule book does allow for a difference of opinion which we should respect.

Peter.

[Jojoe]

16.1.2 explains how a judge should view marking and memory but does very little in describing how a judge should compare the relative “apples and oranges” of marked retrieves and blind retrieves. Natural abilities vs Trained 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. Based on this small section of the rule book I read that Natural ability is judged equally with Trained ability EXCEPT for Qualifying and Junior where Trained ability is “of less importance” and “minor importance” respectively. This is the ONLY statement in the rule book that I can find that makes direct reference to Natural Abilities vs Trained Abilities.




15.3.8(a) Before arriving at their final placings in any
stake, the judges should make direct comparisons,
series for series, between all of their dogs
under consideration for those places. Such
comparisons permit each judge to be certain
that the dog placed first has given a relatively
better performance throughout the stake than
the second place dog. The fourth place dog
should be compared directly with all that are
unplaced, and on a similar basis.
This small passage , in my reading, tells the judges to compare the dog work in each individual series to the other dog work in the same series. It does not suggest a method of weighting these series.


Captainjack: “ there seems to be an interpretation that marking is the end of all and the dog with the best marks win. Is it really that simple?” The question posed is not about how to judge marking and memory 16.1.2. Nor is it about the comparison of two dogs running the same series 15.3.8(a)
The question is how does one compare and weight the relative merits of Marking series and blind series…Natural vs Trained abilities.

Where in the rule book does it say one should outweigh the other??

In my short exposure to FTs I’ve heard the following quote repeated by more than a couple trailers that I hold great respect for… Accurate marking, or memory of falls is of paramount importance.

Hearing only this quote left me with the belief that the Marking series should hold more weight in the decisions of the judges than the Blind series. However, as you continue to read the rule book you realize (at least I do) that this bald statement is taken out of context.


16.1.2 (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.

(b) Ability to mark does not necessarily imply pinpointing
the fall. A dog that misses the fall on
the first cast, but recognizes the depth of the
area of the fall, stays in it, then quickly and systematically
hunts it out, has done both a
creditable and an intelligent job of marking.
Such work should not be appreciably outscored
by the dog that finds or pinpoints on its first
cast. However, a dog which consistently, (i.e.
during the entire stake), marks its birds in a
closer area, hence more accurately than another
dog, should be judged accordingly. All things
are relative, and conceivably, such differences in
marking alone might be sufficient to determine
the final placings in a particular stake.

There is no reference, or inference to suggest that Accurate marking is to be given more weight than blind retrieves.

How is this quote any different than this quote referring to Trained Abilities…
“There should be expectations of full refinement in acquired attributes in those
stakes carrying championship points.


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 points.
At this point in my education I’m easily co-opted. Tell me where I am making my mistake…

Cheers
Ron

[Retrievers ONLINE]

Peter,

If you've been reading Retrievers ONLINE for the past year, you will know that Ted Shih and I have been tackling the subject of designing and evaluating marks and more recently blinds. You'll note that we promised to discuss the evelauation of marks versus blinds in the forthcoming issue-I guess you just couldn't wait:1:

Ron,

While I think that handling skills and proficiency in blind retrieves must be seriously considered in evaluation of all-age dogs, I challenge your statement that the Rulebook doesn't give extra weight to marking. You in fact quote it several times when you reference "accurate marking is of paramount importance".

Dig out your dictionary- what does paramount mean? basically over-riding, supreme, highest - There's the reason why some believe as they do. The problem isn't that some consider marking paramount -IMO it is that for some blind performance is ignored.

Cheers

Dennis

[captainjack]

Dennis,

I got the bug when reading the last On-line where you and Ted talked about evaluating blinds. I guess I was just checking to see if others are reading and what they think. Also, Vickie Lamb's article on where has the water blind gone.
The problem as Ron points out that this statement of "paramount importance" is referring to accurate marking and memory and compares it to different degrees of accuracy. As Ron points out, it never compares it to other aspects of the pereformance.
Yes, marking and memory are of paramount of importance, but can not be put in a vacuum. Many may not only ignor blind performance and evaluation, but may also fail to look at other faults in the performance and their subsequent evaluation.

Peter

Looking forward to your next Online and your stand on blinds vs marks. Keep up the good work.:nice work:

[Jojoe]

Dennis,
I too have been following with interest your discussions with Ted Shih in the recent Retriever Online. Given Ted's legal background I am interested to read his interpretation of the written rule book as it pertains to this question at hand.

Is the location of the word paramount (thanks for the english lesson :1:) in reference to the relative weighting of Marks vs Blinds? This weighting being as important as it is, one would think that the rule book would be far less ambiguous about this issue...unless of course it gave equal weighting to these portions of the test.:stirpot:

I would think that the Rule book has been written to assist with creating a judging pool that is able to be consistent, predictable and uniform in their judging of our sport. A side benefit is to the handlers/trainers to better prepare their team for competition by being able to understand the parameters by which they will be judged.

Why then would the rules not spell out such a major predictor of success in the main body of the rules - instead, if your interpretation is to be accepted, it is buried in a subsection without reference to any comparison of marks to blinds.

Just trying to read the rules as they are written.

I'll be checking the mail box regularly for the new ROL.:bigrin

Cheers,
Ron

[captainjack]

Consider the following: 10.5 the rule book states, "that accurate marking and memory is of primary importance, but " and then goes on to describe what one would have to consider a very good mark. It then states , this dog " would be of great value".
Now if we look at 10.6 it states, "a dog that will handle sharply and positively take directions from his handler on a blind retrieve is also of great value."
Would that not suggest that the rule book is equating and giving equal value to good marking to good blinds?
Many judge blinds as pass and fail and then turn to the marks to get the winner and placings and to justify this, claim that is what the rule book is stating. Is that what is meant by comparing bird for bird?:boo:

[Retrievers ONLINE]

Consider the following: 10.5 the rule book states, "that accurate marking and memory is of primary importance, but " and then goes on to describe what one would have to consider a very good mark. It then states , this dog " would be of great value".
Now if we look at 10.6 it states, "a dog that will handle sharply and positively take directions from his handler on a blind retrieve is also of great value."
Would that not suggest that the rule book is equating and giving equal value to good marking to good blinds?
Many judge blinds as pass and fail and then turn to the marks to get the winner and placings and to justify this, claim that is what the rule book is stating. Is that what is meant by comparing bird for bird?:boo:

Peter,

Sorry I'm not going to bite on this-too many ducks, deer and dogs that need attention. BUT, the current issue of retrievers ONLINE mails tomorrow and Ted and I discuss the sections that you quote above-extensively. I'll be interested what JoJoe and your feedback is. -we can discuss here if desired.

Meanwhile, I'm tempted to find the time to answer Lee's questions about the Q. It does seem that folks like to invent things in the Rulebook. :worms:

Dennis

[captainjack]

Dennis,

As always, I look forward to your Online and enjoy reading your and Ted's opinion. I know that I now do a much better job in training and judging in placing the flyer as suggested by Ted.
I hope that we as judges continue to examine the rule book and discuss such topics as these to improve our judging and the game.
Sorry I couldn't get you to bite.

Peter