|
|
|
|
|
Results of Poll re section 8.4.3 (A)
Please remember to check my website in that it is updated immediately following any obedience council conference calls or activity. Results of Poll re section 8.4.3 (A) 8.4.3 The judge must look for the following in testing each dog and score accordingly: (a) Enjoyment and willingness should be taken into consideration over a better worker that shows fear and a dislike of working. How should the judge take enjoyment and willingness into consideration? Should there be bonus points given at the bottom of the scoresheet for enjoyment and willingness? INFORMAL OPINION POLL RE OBED RULE 8.4.3 1. I like the idea but I don't want to see a box with bonus marks given. Bad feeling's between novice handlers will soon follow this change. The majority of judges are quite lenient now and will be giving out bonus points for most dogs that enter the ring. Please consider adding the following to the existing rules. Judges are encouraged to mentally review the teams work at the end of a run and reward teams that have shown willingness and enjoyment by adjusting minor infractions scores in any portion of the exercises. 2. I think it's an excellent idea. There's so much discretion for judges to take away points, what a super idea for judges to award points for a happy working dog. 3. As nice as it is to give bonus points, I think there has to be a set range of points and I don't think it should be more than 5 points. My reasoning being that a dog with mediocre skills that really enjoys working could theoretically end up getting a score as high as a very well trained, top performing dog if the points for 'enjoyment and willingness' were limitless. I think it is a good thing to reward a dog/handler with a few bonus points if the dog shows enjoyment in working as it means that the handler/trainer has made training an enjoyable event in the dogs life compared to the dog who really doesn't appear to want to be doing obedience. 4. I have always felt that whoever put that wording in the rules had it in mind that there should be points allowed for the happy energetic working team, I wholly support the proposal. 5. I’ve been reading the discussion with interest. For as long as I can remember the rules have paid lip service to “willingness & enjoyment” issue, but not given judges any actual method of rewarding this. I’ve also heard it said that some dogs more obviously demonstrate willingness/enjoyment than others due to breed temperament (i.e. some breeds just aren’t a demonstrative as others). In cases where I see the willingness/enjoyment issue making a difference is say between the top dogs in the class where scores are the same or maybe 1 point difference. That means that even allocating 0-2 points to each dog based on the judge’s perception of each one’s “willingness/enjoyment” could completely change the order of the top 4 dogs in the class (it could also eliminate some runoffs). The way the rule is worded, it doesn’t sound like this is intended to be a scoring issue for every dog that enters the ring. It seems to focus on situations where a judge sees 2 (maybe more) dogs that have very close scores or are tied and is trying to determine which is more worthy of the higher placement. This is where the willingness/enjoyment points could be used. As far as the number of points, I don’t think it needs to be very many. I’ve mentioned up to 2 points. If you think, for example, that every half point equals a crooked sit, giving 2 points is basically forgiving the willing worker 4 crooked sits! That’s a lot, especially for a dog that probably has a good score already! The question then becomes, how do you award bonus points if they would take the score over 200? I’ll be interested to see what comes of this. Thanks for letting us all be involved in expressing our thoughts. 6. ... to be honest, I am not sure I like the idea of bonus points for 'happy' working teams. I understand why we would want to reward team work and willingness/enjoyment on the dog's part for sure. However, I don't think the number of points should be substantial (maybe 1 point). It is all a little too subjective for my liking. I see some judges handing out 'happy' points generously, while other judges will reserve this for really special cases. If everyone is happy do they all get happy points, or only the happiest of happy workers? I also see some room for misinterpretation of stressed dogs for happy dogs. Some dogs stress 'up' and I can see these dogs getting bonus points for being happy (I of course have a dog who stresses down!). So, I guess for me the bottom line is I like the concept, but I think the reward should be small (1 point), recognizing enjoyment on the dog's part, but not making it too big of a deal. I certainly would not want someone getting 3+ points for this. 7. I find this to be a very grey area indeed - I think this is so subjective as a breed of dog that does not look animated but does the job accurately and is pretty steady may be just doing the job as that breed knows how. On the other hand there are some dog breeds that just naturally jump and bounce all over showing great exuberance. I think that at most times this is just the breed of dog. That said, it seems there are dogs that are obviously not happy about their work, but if done accurately, should we penalize this team for not showing exuberance by withholding enjoyment points! I can see a penalty for misbehaviour but how do we know what each individual breed shows for enthusiasm. My Shibas are very reserved about showing enthusiasm (two of my girls very seldom wag their tails) and they show their happiness in ways most others wouldn't see. I have one Shiba that wags her tail constantly, which really pleases me, however she is not (at this point) my best working dog and she tends to get side-tracked. So, how do we determine team work/willingness and enjoyment for each breed of dog and for individual personalities of these dogs? Disobedience and not doing the work is far easier to judge than individual enthusiasm - in my opinion. My concern about marking enthusiasm/enjoyment is that this may limit the number of breeds that are now showing in obedience. It would be very discouraging for people doing obedience with the atypical breed as opposed to those with a breed of dog that is constantly wiggling and wagging their tails. Would we not eventually lose our obedience members, especially those with the atypical breeds? Based on my experience in working with the Shibas, it is difficult enough working on their training and consistency without worring about being judged negatively on visible working enthusiasm/enjoyment. My experience is limited, I am speaking from the viewpoint of one who, over the years, has shown a Minpin, three Dobermans and a Shiba seriously in obedience. My last Doberman was easier to show and would show more enthusiasm than my Shiba, but, with less accuracy. My belief is that the Shibas are a less enthusiastic more stoic breed, however they are very capable of doing obedience well - (and thus, I need all the encouragement I can get)!! 8. Thank you for giving me the opportunity of expressing my opinion on this matter.not a good idea everything is this rule book is "the judge's opinion" i am sure the 8.4.3 (a) "Enjoyment and willingness" dogs are getting point/s benefits if the exhibitor thinks his dog fulfilled 8.4.3 (a) can he lay a complaint ? will there de a deduction box for "shows fear and a dislike of working." "a dislike of working" and "shows fear" are not the same thing 9. if this has positive feed
back (separate box) there must be a limit to the number of dogs in each class
that receive this bonus bonus value one half point (1/2) recommend one dog only
per class and only if warranted i think it is time that a substantial deduction had a minimum value assigned (examples AKC 3 points, UKC 2 1/2 points) 10. I think this is a good idea. I am unclear as to enjoyment on the part of the dog, I hope this means enjoyment while actually doing the exercises, not enjoyment while doing zoomies around the ring without the handler <vbg> I don’t know what an appropriate point range should be, maybe the same as the amount taken off for the mis-behavior penalty. Would this bonus then allow a team to get a score > 200 like in Rally? The only down side I see (can you these thoughts are coming to me as I type, I thought I had it organized in my mind… ) is the potential for hard feelings and resentment if a HIT goes to a dog with bonus points pushing them over a dog that doesn’t get any.... potential for being the operative word there. Overall great idea! 11 Of course I like this suggestion, A separate box could be a good idea and I do agree - lots of "subject to interpretation". I have come up against this all of (my dog’s) career. One point should be sufficient. 12 I read your e-mail in regards to the above and I am having trouble with it as it brings in the one thing that obedience is somewhat free of. How do you know a dog is happy. German Shepherds do not alway show enjoyment even though they are? Does this not create a subjectiive decision on the part of the judge? What if a person got a score of l99 and the dog looked very happy - does this not give him or her a score of over 200? I like obedience because if it pretty well black and white - you either do it or not. I think this idea would be very good for Rally-O where the format is less formal. 13 But, suffice to say that after showing a dog who (a) LOVES to work and shows it, and (b) also has been known to make noise in the ring occasionally and has been hit points that vary from ridiculous to acceptable, it is clear to me that there is absolutely no consistency from judges as to how to deal with it. This idea makes me wonder if ‘bonus points’ for a great working dog would be cancelled out due to the misbehaviour, or vice versa. <g> And I also wonder if there is such discrepancy between judges on how they mark down barking, whether or not bonus points will be just fall into the same category – some judges will give some and some judges wont give as many. I guess its these grey areas that give the handlers grey hairs!! I did have some time to ponder more about this bonus points for ‘willingness and enjoyment’. For me, this is something that should have been considered all along as stated in the rule book. But, rather than have another grey area (read here inconsistency from judge to judge) as to how to allocate how many points and who should get them and who shouldn’t and all that goes with that, I think it makes more sense to leave that alone. Points should be REMOVED for dogs that act like they would rather be doing anything but being in the ring. To recognize dogs who are NOT enjoying it, is much easier than trying to give extra points to the ones that do. The other issue I have has to do with defining a dog who is exhibiting the joy of working and being in the ring vs a dog who is a good working dog, but has been *taught* to do certain behaviors which either look cute, were taught so as to add some ‘flash’ to its performance, and/or could be deemed as appearing as if it enjoys what its doing. In fact, this dog has been taught a *behavior* which has nothing to do with an honest love of doing what its doing. This dog would be receiving bonus points for ‘artistic impression’, and since that is something you may receive in figure skating, there is no place in the rulebook for points for that in the obedience ring So, once again, there could be just another grey area. I guess for me, there is a lot to pound out before I would give this concept a thumbs up. JMHO, 14 I think bonus points is a great idea. I would like to hear what other judges have to say about the point range. 15. This is a very grey area and I do not think that the judge is in a position to todetermine if the dog is happy and enjoying the work. For example in the human world I go to my two grandsons' hockey games and one you would think that his parents had dragged him to the rink and the other you would think was high on something but they are both equally enjoying the game and are equaly enthusiastic, both are good players and would probably be given equal marks for performance, should one be penalized because he does not show emotion. A great many dogs bounce up and down with joy because they are thinking of the sausage waiting on the table outside of the ring. Others are doing a job and do it with the dignity that goes along with a job well done... can a judge put a score on this. In my opinion it is too subjective. A misbehaviour is a misbehaviouur and I think that we can all recognize that. Sorry to be so long winded and thanks for the opportunity to have some input. 16. I really like this idea! In my opinion it should be 1 point, 3 points or up to a total max. of 5 points. It is a real joy to watch and handle an accurate dog that also really enjoys being in the obedience ring. 17. I like the suggestion that is made and I would offer 5 points. 18. My opinion may not be worth much, as I am neither competing or judging anymore. It seems to me it would open up a huge can of worms. If you’ve got two equal performing dogs and one is more animated, is he enjoying his work or just naturally exuberant. Some dogs/breeds just have more dour personalities. It may take the same amount of skill or more to get an equal performance from the second dog. Does this mean that dogs who “strut” will receive higher marks than those who are more workmanlike? My vote is no. 19. If the perfect picture is to have a dog that shows enjoyment and willingness then this should be accounted for in the regular scoring. I don't think that bonus points should be given for meeting the perfect picture. Instead, I would prefer to see a deduction for teams that do not display this i.e. a box for "Less Penalty for Poor Attitude". (That's not the exact wording I would use but just wanted to give it as an example). Thanks for the opportunity for giving my input. 20. Great to see the “wheels” are still turning. I would hesitate to have bonus points for willingness and enjoyment. I feel by taking away points, which is the whole idea on scoring, is sufficient. I feel that having an option to add “bonus” points could lead to some hard feeling by the exhibitors as it leaves room to play “favorites”. Thanks for asking 21. I love the idea. How about 3-10 points: 3 shows willingness and enjoyment for at least 1/2 of the activities, 6 for most, and 10 for all. I think that we have to make the points worthwhile so that folks will work for the willingness and enjoyment of the dog. That could mean that a perfect score would be 210 22. A big positive step would be to change the wording of the 8.4.3 from "................. BETTER worker that shows fear and dislike of working" to "....................MORE ACCURATE worker that shows fear and dislike of working." Giving bonus points for 'joy of working' is a good idea. There is no restriction on the number of points that can be taken off for 'Misbehaviour', so, why should there be a restriction of the number of bonus points for 'Joy of Working'? Therefore I would not want to see a restriction placed on this concept. 23. I love the idea. I think people enjoy watching a dog that is having fun versus one that is animated and simply going thru the motions . (A dog I had a few years ago) in particular would have picked up a lot of points in this area .Not sure why but I think it should offer up to an extra 20 points. Sounds like a good number to me. 24. Interesting suggestion. Lots of times we say or hear -- that dog should get bonus points for enthusiasm or being fun to watch but I really don’t think it is something that should be scored. I would rather see no deduction for a joyful woof. I know not all judges penalize barking but in the case of a dog barking a couple of times because they are happy doing the work I don’t see the harm there as long as it isn’t excessive. What I am saying is no bonus points for enthusiasm but no deductions either. Will be very interested to hear how others feel about this 25. I like (the idea) . It is a positive rather than negative which is always good in my opinion. I don't feel comfortable in commenting on the number of points as I am not in Obedience. Is there a chance that the points could be left to the discretion of the judge. He would witness the team and could decide the degree of enjoyment and willingness. Perhaps a range of points could be suggested for this. 26. I do not mind the suggestion but how does one avoid the subjective points as all breeds are not alike in their expression of "enjoyment" I am not saying a judge cannot know this but how does one score a very happy Golden as compared to a more reserved breed like a Saluki who may be enjoying the Obedience ring but not expressing it the same way. Will they (Saluki) get penalized? 27. GREAT IDEA !! 5POINT BONUS FOR THAT AREA ..THANK GOD FINALLY SOME COMMON SENSE .. 28. this is a great idea we both enjoy watching a happy dog who may not be perfect versus a dog who looks like he was trained with a big stick .Thanks for the opportunity to comment. 29. Yes... I do like this idea.... and I would have a max points of 5.... 30. I LOVE the idea! I have grumbled for years about robotic dogs that are 'technically' better and score higher than a happy dog with crooked sits. Up to three points comes to mind for the bonus points. Thanks for working on this. 31. Although I like the idea of rewarding teamwork and a positive relationship I can see it would be a very difficult thing to "measure" or quantify. However, I do think true harmony, respect and balance in a relationship is something that cannot be faked or forced. ha! So I guess I am not really a whole lot of help then, am I? 32. I agree with this suggestion. Not that I am cheap or anything, but I would like to see 2 - 3 points extra for happy worker. 5 would be great but I don't think that is too realistic. For example the dogs that work great and earn 199.5 would it be possible to reflect the extra points? Great luck to everyone who are trialing this year. 33. I have thought about your email on bonus points and while I like the principle I do not think it would help the sport . Who is to say on some very nice working dogs if they should get bonus points. A dog who happily flies out to the bell and hits it with its feet could be given bonus points for a happy working dog while a very precise quick retrieve could end up with a lower score (no bonus point) A happy recall that bounces of his owner before the front could also score higher with its bonus or a forging heel pattern from a happy worker could also win with the bonus points. One could go on and on so I would not want to see unlimited bonus points 34. I would like to express my opinion on this matter. I don't think judges should be asked to pass opinions on a dog's fear/enjoyment index. Isn't it more a reflection of how comfortable the handler is in the ring? Also, like people, some dogs may not be as effusive as others. Does that make them "unwilling or fearful"? I think this puts unfair pressure on the judges and I think they have a hard enough job. Speaking from personal experience, I think my dogs have always scored better in those trials where they were relaxed and happy, for whatever reason. 35. Yes, I like the idea of a team work/willingness and enjoyment on the dog's part being rewarded. So many of the dogs in the obedience ring look nervous about being there. Not sure about the point system, as I imagine this would be up to the individual judge. 36. Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I really had to think about this one. I’m going to say no to the idea of giving extra points for willingness and enjoyment on the dog’s part. If it were to happen, I would want to see this defined in very specific behaviours by the dog and handler in order to lessen subjective assessments. I also suspect that these behaviors are those of dogs and handlers that are already doing well in the obedience ring and would not help out the struggling novices (like I’m about to be again). I believe that this could be a very subjective assessment and some breeds, by nature, look more willing and seem to enjoy it more. (Unfortunately, one of my dogs sometimes shows his enjoyment by giving a little bark J.) I remember when I first started trialing there was a Bassett Hound that everyone would go to watch. Did the dog look willing? Really hard to say – it was a Basset J. But it did the required exercises – well, most of the time. I always thought that the handler should have gotten bonus points for trialing with a Bassett. I think that Rally used to give extra points for a similar thing, but have removed it because of the subjectivity of the assessment. This is a tough one because it emphasizes the positive, which is always important. However, I think that overall it creates more potential problems than it is worth. 37. Hi, sorry I am a little late with my reply, but yes I am in favor of adding bonus points for a happy worker. The amount of points depends on the dog's overall performance. 38. It's probably a little late but I thought that I'd offer my 2 cents worth - I think that bonus points are, with limits attached, a good thing. All of my dogs, in their heyday, were happy workers and we would probably have benefited from a bonus point system. Some of those who have responded have expressed fears that bonus points would add a degree of subjectivity to the sport, much like we used to see in figure skating. I don't think that that is an appropriate concern - on whole the scores that we, as competitive teams earn in obedience, are based on the subjective evaluation by the judges of our work in the ring. Having said that, I can see room for what some may consider abuses - there are some judges who many feel show breed preferences. If those judges had the ability to give bonus points I can see those who are of that view complaining about the scores that are earned. To me this ignores or down plays the integrity of our judges but could, potentially, do a disservice to the sport. Perhaps the way to deal with those concerns is to utilize what would otherwise be bonus points to offset some of the minor deductions that have been assessed. The idea of using "willingness and enjoyment" as a criteria in determining score is not foreign to dog sports. Under the Hunt Test Rules judges are required to as score dogs based on a number of criteria, one of which is "Style". The Rules, in discussing style states as follows: 14.2.1 Style is apparent in every movement of a dog by the gaiety of its manner, by its alertness, by its eagerness and speed on retrieves, by its water entry, by its pick up of birds, and by its return with them. Style and marking constitute the most important abilities of retrievers, but this does not imply that a dog which excels in marking and style should not be scored lower on other abilities, even to the extent of not receiving a qualifying score for lack of or serious deficiencies in those required abilities. 14.2.2 In any hunting situation style includes:
The Rules state: 13.4 In scoring a dog's abilities in a test, the judges must assign a numerical score from "0" to "10" that reflects their estimation of each ability that they have seen demonstrated. 13.5 To qualify, a dog must receive an overall average of 7 for the entire test and must not have an average score in any one ability category below 5. For example, a dog could score 7's, 8's or even 9's in some ability categories and fail to qualify if the average score in another category was below five. At the end of the day I like the idea of a judge, at the end of the day, being faced with 2 or more teams having earned equal scores, considering "willingness and enjoyment" to break the tie(s). As an alternative, perhaps it might be worthwhile considering applying a bonus point system to the "non-competitive" classes (Novice "A" and Open "A") as a way to try and bring home to "newbies" that our sport is meant to be fun for our dogs and to try and perhaps offer some type of encouragement or incentive for them to continue on in the sport.
B.C. INTERIOR (ZONE 12) – JANUARY/07 1. Hi Carol. I'm of two minds regarding adding a box for points to reward willingness. It seems like a good idea at first glance but on reviewing it, I think that it has always been possible for the judges to notice and reward for a good partnership by giving a point or even 1/2 pt. to the better team but as judges have different views on what constitutes willingness this could still be a problem. Some dogs are really lively and bouncy and wag their tails all the time but others are really focused but equally happy. Perhaps it would be better to take marks off for obvious reluctance on the dogs part. Until the judges are more in line on their beliefs regarding willingness ( what is willingness and what is bordering on silliness) there will always be some people who aren't happy. All in all I think that the judges do a good job trying to give points for the best work. A few mandatory workshops for the judges is perhapss the best route to follow to ensure a more even point system. Judy 2. Hi Carol, I think it is a GREAT idea, but would obviously be tough to put into place. I like the idea of the box at the bottom where an extra point or two could be added at the judge’s discretion. I think that it would most easily come to play when two dogs are very similar in terms of their ‘work’, but one dog obviously enjoys it, and the other doesn’t so much. It would be pretty tough to place one dog (better attitude) ahead of another dog (better technical worker). I don’t know it that helps any, but I do like the concept. Linda 3. I think with today’s training methods that 99.9% of competitors are using this rule is redundant. I don’t like the idea of bonus points in any way. Certain breeds like Goldens look happier than other breeds, but it doesn’t mean they are happier and judges shouldn’t have to determine this. Karen 4. I think it is a nice “idea” to give points for enjoyment and willingness…..but they still haven’t clarified how one would judge that. What is the criteria – the physical body characteristics that the judge would look for? That I think is the hard part..some dogs look happy no doubt about it. Other dogs look fairly intense and serious in competition and yet they may be as happy. And then there are the dogs that “appear” to be happy and are wagging their tails in relief…phew, no jerk on that corner. If this is in some way meant to encourage more positive training methods – and it may not be – then that is what they should be upfront about. No punishing collars allowed in the ring. Wearing a choke collar is wearing a “threat”. How about only buckle collars or for that matter no collar at all similar to agility? How to define it so all judges could try to be fair? Until that is done I think it should be taken out completely. Nan 5. It is still a grey area so having a box or no box makes no difference – other than giving another area to argue about. Having a dog that might always look like she hates what she is doing doesn’t make her less of a worker than the dog that shows little emotion but follows the routine. If I see a box not giving her bonus points for team work it would make me feel quite bad. In fact a shy dog is working way harder than the bouncy dog to achieve the exercise and is actually working harder with greater team work than the more exuberant dog. What is wrong with have a grey area of the Judge deciding if it was a good team or a poor team. That’s why you have a variety of human judges – to make individual independent decisions within an agreed upon parameter of expected behavior. Are some of the more reticent breeds going to earn the bonus for team work or will it just be awarded to the more animated, bouncy breeds. A good working bulldog will never show the team work of a golden but will the judge take that into consideration? Again, if that trainer has worked hard with a challenging breed why make their performance feel less appreciated when they have not scored bonus points for their team work – and if they are going to score those points then perhaps most dogs should earn it. I want a Judges opinion and score on what the dog and I did – I don’t need their opinion on whether my dog and I are a team. We are a team – maybe not a great team but then maybe she and I are not great performers in public either. Poor heeling, broken sits or downs critique our skills and if I fail, I fail but if someone states we are not a team – now that would hurt. Brenda 6. I am NOT in favor of adding a box to the scoresheet for bonus points for team work. First, there can be great teamwork without either member of the team enjoying it. Secondly, we are still not removing the “grey area” – the judge will still have to make an interpretation about the willingness, etc. and choose how many points to award adding another area of contention. I personally would find this very hard to do. Dogs can be trained to work with great animation – head up, strutting gait, tail going. Do these actions indicate to me that the dog is any more willing or happy to do the exercises? A dog that has a much quieter nature (or is not trained to look the part or doesn’t have the long tail to way) can in my opinion be just as happy to do the work. I would like to see this section REMOVED from the rulebook entirely just because it is so vague. I think it was probably included years ago when training methods were a lot harsher. How often in the last few years have we seen a dog that was obviously unhappy and grudging in its work do well in competition? It is in the Novice and Open A classes I most often see dogs that are unsure / hesitant / uncertain in their work looking unhappy. This is mostly due to the nervousness and inexperience of both dog and handler, not because the dog has been badly treated during training. Penalizing them – it amounts to the same thing if I choose to withhold bonus points – is only going to make them feel worse about their performance and they are the very people we are trying to encourage to continue in the sport. Sorry to be so long winded – I am really glad you are looking at this section as it does come up from time to time. I think judges are already dealing with this issue in the main by deducting points for the actual performance during the individual exercises. Yes, there are some individual cases we can probably all point to, but I think the bonus points idea will only cause more dissension. Norma 7. Hello Carol, The comments below are from Rick Yates and we agree with Rick having seen too many “mechanical” dogs in the ring. “With this change, I think that it should read Bonus points for a happy team or something similar. Not bonus points for teamwork. Good teamwork is what often gets you the 190 to 200 score. It doesn’t necessarily need to be a happy team to do that. A well drilled dog can do that, but it can be working mechanically not happily. I would sooner see the rank novice who comes into the ring with a happy but less than precise companion and only merits a 168 score, then get two extra points and pass because his or her companion was a willing, happy worker!” Janet & Jeff 8. I do not like the change suggestion, my reason being, many dogs or breeds work in different ways. Some are more reserved than others, the happy ones such as most sporting breeds to me always look happy working, while some other breeds seem more reserved and seem to be deep in thought so they do not appear as happy, but really are. Breeds like the St. Bernard or Bloodhound are a more reserved working dog and a good judge can usually read the body language and look into the eyes to see the soul of the dog. Emilie 9. Either way it is subjective and I would just delete the section in its entirety. To my mind it is more a quideline for a judge’s book than part of a trial scoring system. The Less Penalty for Misbehaviour could be a heading with tick boxes for such things as “excessive barking”. Truthfully, I can’t think of anything else that comes to my mind under misbehaviour. Sue 10. Hmmm, I would think this could be very tough for judges to be equal on as it is totally open to interpretation…..some dogs ‘show’ willingness and/or fear and loathing, and some don’t….such as a Giant Schnauzer….you can’t even see their eyes! Because of this, I would have to say I don’t like it, I wonder if the penalty working could be changed instead to read something like “less penalty for misbehaviour and/or lack of enthusiasm”. Just my thoughts, thanks for asking. Cindy
ONTARIO EAST (Zone 5) – JANUARY/07
1. This is a great suggestion. I like it. I often had that comment written on my sheet, and I would have enjoyed having extra points for it. I would say1 or 2 pts. 2. I do not think it should be points allowed, however, I think it is a good idea to have it written comment on the score sheet. The actual value could be that in case of a tied score, if one dog has this comment entered, it would effectively give the dog the extra point. I think this way, we minimize the subjectivity as long as judges do not write this on every good dog just because they perform (every body gets a standing ovation?). Another possibility is to give a low value such as one point extra at the end. This way the effect is positive but minimal to cancel out subjectivity. 3. Michelle, the problem is it would still be subjective. It's what that judge sees\likes on that day.You can get some pretty grey areas when talking about willingness\team work. Personally, I'd get rid of the first and forget the second.If the dog is misbehaving in the ring, the judge is going to remove points from the individual exercises, right? Willingness and teamwork would be rewarded the same way. 4. In summary, I do not in principle, support awarding bonus points on one's score sheet and further, I don't support awarding bonus points for 'enjoyment and willingness'. Let me explain. First, rightly or wrongly, obedience scores are determined by deducting points from a perfect score of 200 for a behaviour or action (on the part of the dog or the handler) which is not deemed to be 'perfect' as per the guidelines offered in the rule book. If one starts to add bonus points, the perfect score of 200 gets muddled and loses it's impact. If one believes that a judge can quantify 'enjoyment and willingness' then one would have to agree that a judge can also quantify 'fear and dislike of working'. It makes more sense then, if you believe the above, that points be deducted for 'fear and dislike' rather than added for 'enjoyment and willingness' and thus, keep the scoring methodology the same. Secondly, adding (or deducting) points and coming up with a 'number', in my opinion, does not clarify the grey area. Assigning a value does not contribute, in any way, to defining or delineating what is meant by 'enjoyment and willingness' or 'fear and dislike'. Unless the delta (from what is deemed to be perfect) of these attitudes can be quantified in some way, it is still open to individual interpretation and opinion by the judge, whether or not a number is assigned. A Golden Retriever wagging it's tail while it works does not in any way indicate that it is necessarily enjoying it's work more than a whippet for example, that naturally has it's tail down. In general, I am thrilled that the obedience committee is making an attempt to clarify and expand the rule book. Based on the question, I have to assume that the committee's focus is also to try to standardize the judging of the exercises in the various classes and to clarify to the competitor what is expected in each of the exercises. Has any thought been given to issuing a 'Obedience Judge's Guidelines handbook' a la the AKC, where the scoring is a little more standardized and known and where the competitor can get a sense of the judging from both sides of the clipboard? As for bonus points for team work I think it is a great idea. I would suggest no more than 5 points could be added. That way it is not too many points which might make up for an error along the way but enough to make a difference "all other things being equal" 5. I LOVE this idea. Though I don't think I would call it "Team Work". I prefer words/concepts like "Attitude", "Performance Value", "Joy in Performance", "Ring Presence". "Artistic Impression"? At the same time, I don't think it should be worth a lot, just enough to give an edge to a clearly more joyful team, if the judge felt it was deserved. So no more than a point in total. Wonder how many judges would feel comfortable breaking a 198 tie for HIT with a bonus mark. 6. I think this is a wonderful area to explore and I would be willing to see up to 3 points up or down depending on the relationship. 7. I thought that I would check with the AKC regulations and guidance for judges on this issue of "enjoyment and willingness". The preamble to the AKC regulations state that "it is also essential that the dog demonstrate willingness and enjoyment." I looked the AKC regs to see if a more thorough definition of what constitutes enjoyment and willingness might be stated for the use of judges and competitors. Chapter 2 Regulations for performance and judging discusses the Standard of Perfection. Specifically, this "perfect picture must comply with these Regulations and shall combine the utmost in willingness, enjoyment and precision on the part of naturalness, gentleness and smoothness on the part of the handler. Speed alone does not necessarily indicate willingness and enjoyment". So, apart from that indication that speed should not be used as the sole indicator of enjoyment, the AKC does not appear to have any better handle on the terms than do we. There are definitions for things like "brisk", which is defined as "keenly alive, alert and energetic" which is problematic in that what the hell does "keenly alive' mean? The task of trying to operationally define an "attitude" may negatively impact on dogs whose temperaments do not fit into our vision of what constitutes "enjoyment." I seldom laugh out loud at a movie or a TV show--but my lack of outward laughing should not be read as another person as an indicator of my lack of "enjoyment". It is an interesting task of setting evaluation criteria. 8. Adding bonus points for teamwork is not the best way to go. Given some of the judging propensities these days, this could lead to scores of 200+. Teamwork should be evinced for the most part by the precision of the many other elements that are already scored effectively. The only element of teamwork/performance that CAN'T really be addressed through existing criteria is that of enjoyment/willingness, which can't be evaluated on a "component" basis. By that I mean, that practically speaking you can't deduct points because a given sit, front, or finish does or does not demonstrate "enjoyment and willingness". This is the sort of criteria that must be assessed on a whole performance basis, rather than based on a tally of components of that performance. And I think this is actually what the rules imply. However, there has never been any guidance on HOW to do that -- which is what you are trying to address right now. I think it makes sense to address this through deductions on " Enjoyment and Willingness" -- which would be a final criteria included in the scoring sheets. My suggestion is that judges accord anywhere from .5 to 3 points deductions for this. I think that the potential for abuse is very high here and that guidance and direction to both judges and competitors is critical. However, I don't think it is practical to work every element that one would intuitively understand as components of enjoyment and willingness (tail carriage, head/neck carriage, briskness of pace, swiftness of execution, etc.) into specific criteria on which marks would be accorded. But I think it would be absolutely critical to have the education for both judges and competitors include a series of video clips that could be used to show on a comparative basis, excellent and less-than excellent teams in regard to "enjoyment and willingness" with a good debriefing on the specific elements that can and should be considered. 9. I believe that determining the concept of fear (should be fairly easy to assess) and disliking work are less grey areas than misbehaviour ( which can be done out of spunkiness and fun) and how does one interpret team work as each breed and training method has a different way of working with their owner which may or may not be perceived as team work. I think the two new suggested wording are less obvious to assess and can still be subjective. You can also catch the misbehaviour" in other penalty scores such as "loss of control" and could add something more concrete and easily measurable such as "out of control and does not obey owner's commands" should be penalized and would not be subjective. I am also concerned that "team work" would encourage people to have dogs that are robot like...... As well the extra points would always be extra points for the same individual under the same judges...... unless the dog and/or owner is "off" that day. A consideration could be the concept of award of merit for team work ( conformation specialties do award of merit). What an honour to have such an award and these can be given only if truly spectacular team work. I think the rules would need something much more easily measurable that those trainers outside the ring would also be able to assess and support if a penalty or bonus points are given 10. First of all, from an evaluation point of view, part of the problem with this particular section of the rule book is that we are asking judges to evaluate an "attitude". We ask a judge to look at a series of behaviours exhibited by the dog in the ring and to then interpret those behaviours as being indicative of the dog "enjoying and showing willingness". First of all, I am not sure that the two aspects i.e., enjoyment and willingness are necessarily to be considered as synonyms. As you pointed out in your email, each judge now picks and chooses which behaviours to use as indicators of enjoyment and willingness and, as such, the process becomes very subjective. I also struggle with the current regulation of "punishing" a better working dog by awarding an "enjoyment" bonus to a lesser working dog who appears, by someone's standards, to be enjoying the experience more. Using this logic, every goofy golden in Novice A or every poodle who does the zoomies in the ring should be getting a bonus as they are "enjoying" the experience. Even the ultimate feel good event i.e., Rally-O, evaluates not on enjoyment but on completion of all the exercises in a timed routine. In order to effectively evaluate these aspects of enjoyment and willingness, the CKC must produce an inclusive list of behaviours that will be used by judges as indicators of enjoyment and willingness and, for that matter, fear and lack of willingness. In other words, the terms "enjoy and willing" will be replaced by the statement that "CKC has decided that if the following behaviours are exhibited by a dog then operationally defined the dog is demonstrating enjoyment and willingness". Of course one of the many issues with doing this sort of behavioural listing is that competitors will start to train their dogs to exhibit those behaviours in the ring and so, six months after the list is released we will see those behaviours in every trial. I am sure for example that heads-up heeling started to show up in performances only after it was identified as a behavioural indicator of "attention". I understand that the bonus marks for team work proposal is an attempt to move away from willingness and enjoyment.evaluation. Are we saying that the same regulation will apply as with enjoy and willingness i.e., that a team showing teamwork will be given a higher mark than a team which is working better but demonstrating lesser degrees of teamwork? We have the same issue with team work as we do with enjoy and willingness i.e., what does it mean? Does teamwork include the movement between exercises, the readiness to begin, an orderly departure from the ring etc.. Having said that. I am not sure if bonus marks for teamwork is the answer.> To my way of thinking, the demonstration of teamwork should be an essential part of every routine--as determined by precision of work, always being in heel position, no lagging or forging etc. In other words, teamwork is a product of doing everything right. Perfect teamwork through a perfect demonstration of all of the essential requirements of the routine is already rewarded i.e., a 200. So rather than to give a bonus mark for teamwork i.e.,what is expected in obedience, then we should be concentrating more on a closer evaluation of those behaviours not demonstrating teamwork and deducting marks accordingly. As a result, I am not in favour of awarding a bonus mark for a demonstration of teamwork. 11. An excellent idea and one that is long overdue. It is, however, still very subjective and open to interpretation. As to the point score to be added, it should be reflective of the point score for "Less Penalty for Misbehaviour". A point score higher or lower will maintain the inequity that you are now trying to eliminate. 12. I hate the idea of bonus points for teamwork. I have been showing in obedience for longer than most people- now 25 years. Obedience is what it is a series of exercises that is scored against a perfect performance. If you want to change it to "does the dog like the owner" then you will have to consider why the dog is motivated to work. Food, fear, love, or actually likes working. The CKC has screwed so much up already, leave it alone! 13. This had been talked about at great lengths. This is a tough one to judge. Some say it depends on the breed with some showing more animation then others. I would not allow any bonus points for willingness etc. This is going to cause issues if someone looses a high in trial because of it. The more that is in black and white the better it can be handled by exhibitors. I hope this helps. 14. I think the concept is a good one, but I don't think bonus points is the right way to go. You will end up with a change of the maximum score for an obedience routine, and the number 200 has a great deal of meaning. To me it would make more sense to me to work it in reverse. Maybe reduce the scoring on some other exercise and provide a range of something like 1-5 points for attitude. In this way, a fearful dog that does a perfect routine cannot earn a 200. It has always been a bit of an irritant to me, and probably to many others, that a dog that is totally stressed is able to get 200s. It might have been technically perfect, but that enjoyment and willingness were missing so it was not really a perfect routine. 15. I think that the use of the box for bonus points for team work would still lead to much individual and subjective interpretation and I do not think it should be included on the score sheet. How is team work defined? There can be many interpretations. Until there is some way in which the judges all understand and apply exactly the same definition and "picture" of "team work," this quality cannot be judged objectively.
16. Concerning the section in
question " Enjoyment and willingness..........." I'd have to agree that the
term is subjective and way too interpretive. But.... it is to be held as the
standard to which perfection is defined. Willingness (enthusiasm, alertness,
smartly) isn't that difficult to observe. I believe the issue falls more on the
shoulders of deducting for the "less than perfect" mental picture definition.
More times than not a dog that is displaying less than the mental model of
perfection in willingness is simultaneously displaying other more obvious
deductible and non-subjective behaviours. Slow responses, walking or stopping
during commands and lacking "liveliness" are just a few that come to mind.
Suggesting bonus points for" teamwork" would fall under the same criticisms
as"willingness" is now. It's interpretive and subjective. It's just another area
for grey. Adding an opposing obscure definition to an already obscure definition
won't cancel each other out. They'll just add more confusion. Exercising the
already built in defined faults/offenses would assist more in the clarification
of the ideal performance. I think the lack of deductions for the offenses that
are already covered in the rules and regulations is contributing to the allure
of adding "bonus points" to a routine that should be the standard of ideal not
the "more than". On another topic,( although I realize you're not mentioning it
here in 18. I think this is a really good suggestion. I think up to 2 points would be reasonable. Is there any hope of getting the CKC to go with the mixed-up order of exercises? I really think this would go a long way to reducing the monotony for dogs.
SASKATCHEWAN (Zone 9) – JANUARY/07
#1
The Obedience Council conducted a teleconference meeting in late July. The majority of time was devoted to dotting “i’s” and crossing “t’s” on the proposed Rally O rules. The most recent draft will be provided at the Rally workshops. Once they are approved by the board, the final version will be available on the CKC website. In addition to Rally items, there was a change to the proposed UNOFFICIAL CLASSES requirements. During the Spring we put forward a bid to open up Unofficial Classes by no longer requiring an exhibitor to enter either an official class or Ex Only when entering an unofficial class. The board returned the motion to the obedience council citing that should the motion be approved, it would put obedience rules in conflict with other rulebooks. Council withdrew the motion. A conflict between sections 15.1.1 and 15.7.1 was identified by council members during their most recent teleconference call --
There will be motion put to the board changing “may” in 15.7.1 to “must”.
Rally O is coming to CKC. Launch date is January 1, 2007. There will be information workshops conducted over the summer and fall. Please click on “Upcoming Events” for further information.
CKC OBEDIENCE RULES &
REGULATIONS CHANGES
SPECIALTY OBEDIENCE TRIALS
Specialty clubs holding specialty conformation shows will be permitted to apply for and be granted permission to hold specialty obedience trials confined to the breed or breeds eligible to enter in the specialty or the club may apply to hold a group or more than one group or an allbreed trial.
Adding group or more than one group to Section 2.1 of the Obedience Trial Rules & Regs. gives clubs more flexibility in determining what they may offer in the way of obedience trials. LEASH & COLLAR It’s important to note that until a proposed rule change (obedience, dog show, field, tracking, etc) is approved by the board, it is not in effect. The following item was originally scheduled to take effect in January, 2006 but was not included until recently on Board of Director meeting agendas due to the extremely heavy work load already assigned each agenda. Obedience Rules section 8.16.3 – “Collars other than those specified in these rules are not allowed within the ring. Violation of this may result in the removal of the dog from further competition at that obedience trial.” Members of the obedience council identified problems surrounding rule 8.16.3 and after speaking with obedience participants in their respective zones, chose to return this rule to its original wording being “ring” instead of “venue”. UNOFFICIAL CLASSES Owners/handlers may now simply enter an Unofficial Class and are no longer required to also enter one of the Official Classes or Exhibition Only. If an owner or handler chooses to enter a dog in an Unofficial Class along with an official class, he/she is free to do so but it is not required. Unofficial classes are Graduate Novice, Graduate Open, Brace, Team & Veteran’s. TRANSITION CLASSES There will be housekeeping changes to Pre Novice which will (it is hoped) make the exercise descriptions a little easier to understand. The order of Official classes (in order of ascension) together with the rework of the PreNovice class is currently underway. No implementation date has been identified. OBEDIENCE EXAMS FOR APPLICANT OBEDIENCE JUDGES A person applying to become a licensed obedience judge must firstly meet all required criteria before making application. Please refer to other pages contained on this website for details. Once the individual has completed all requirements, the application, together with supporting documentation, must be forwarded to head office for perusal. When the applicant receives permission to proceed, a written exam package consisting of 4 exams (Pre Novice and Novice, Companion Dog Intermediate and Open, Utility plus a General exam) is forwarded to the appropriate zone director. The zone director then forwards the exam to the obedience representative or agent who contacts the applicant and makes arrangements for the individual to take the exams. The completed exam package is thereafter returned to head office. Once head office has the exam, it is forwarded to individuals designated as “exam markers”. The exams are currently being reworded and updated. In the future, they will be multiple choice and will be marked by CKC Head Office personnel. There’s no specific date identified for implementation but committee members are working hard and it is hoped that the project will be completed by the end of the summer. Once the written exam has been redesigned, the oral exam will be reworked. It is assumed at this point in time that the present system of an applicant sitting for examination before a panel of examiners. It will simply be the questions that are changed. WORDING COMMITTEE What was originally thought to be a simple project has turned out to be mammoth. Sections in need of clarification have grown to in excess of 30 pages. Housekeeping “tidying” is hoped to reach conclusion by early summer. Completion of the entire project will be several more months. JUNIOR HANDLING The council is currently discussing ways in which to generate more interest in Junior Obedience. NEW DEFINITIONS There will be some new definitions added to Section 1 – Interpretations
MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATION NUMBER (MCN) “MCN” will be included in Sections 9.4.2 (a), 10.4.2 (a) and 11.4.2 (a). This means that in order to use a Novice, Open or Utility title a dog must: Be registered in the records of CKC, or have an Event Registration Number (ERN), a Performance Event Number (PEN), or if it belongs to a listed breed, a Miscellaneous Certification Number (MCN). Please see CKC Updates page on this website for information regarding “RG004”
Rule changes - coming into effect January 1, 2006:
ACTIVITIES Exercises and Classes Subcommittee Ø A national subcommittee comprised of obedience reps was formed and which is called the “Exercises & Classes subcommittee”. Serving on it are Marion Postgate (zone 11) Lianne Daradics (zone 9) Norma Hamilton (zone 2) and myself (zone 10) as chair. We drafted a questionnaire which was distributed as widely as possible to clubs and obed trial participants. There was a separate mail out to trial secretaries in that one question pertained to post entries and it was our opinion that those upon whom the impact would be greatest should be provided with an opportunity to provide feedback. The questionnaire was also available on my website. Items included were as a result of comments and issues obed reps have reported over the last year. The largest number of responses was received from B.C. followed closely by Alberta. I’m in the process of tallying the results which will then be provided to all reps for consideration and reporting to folks in their respective zones. Zone 10 results have been posted on the website since mid-July. Once all reps have had an opportunity to peruse the results, recommendations will be made to either propose changes to the rules or maintain a status quo. Wording Review subcommittee Ø An additional national subcommittee was formed and given the task of examining all sections of the rulebook with a view to “tidying” up wording which may be causing confusion. Members of this subcommittee are Michelle Armitage (zone 5) Carol Edwards (zone 12) and myself. It is hoped that we will have recommendations to provide to the obedience council early in the New Year. Obedience Judges Education Ø It is the goal of the obedience council to draft and implement an Obedience Judges Education program, the result of which will be mandatory continuing education for obedience judges. It will, in all likelihood, be a co-operative programme between CKC and the Canadian Association of Obedience Trial Judges (CAOTJ) Rally O Ø Rally O will become an official CKC event in the not too distant future. American Kennel Club provided CKC with permission to use their rules which will enable us to “fast track” Rally O. A subcommittee is working on this project. Here Today/Gone Tomorrow Ø Every once in awhile sections mysteriously disappear from the obedience rulebook. It appears that it is a copy/paste computer function gone wrong. Head office is comparing past rulebooks to the present one in an attempt to determine the reason for certain sections being either deleted or changed without board or obedience council input.
OBEDIENCE UPDATES posted by:
Virginia (Gin) Cummings |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
