Jump to content
BC Boards

USBCHA BOD motion on running orders


Shoofly
 Share

Recommended Posts

There is a motion before the board of directors for the HA about running orders that is now under discussion:

 

From the HA website: "Michele Howard make a motion that the running orders for all USBCHA sanctioned trials be drawn in accordance with the same rules governing the drawing of our National Finals, seconded by Dick Williams."

 

This is the pertinent section of the HA rules, regarding the draw for the running order at the Finals:

 

SECTION 15: RUNNING ORDER

A. Any competitor running two dogs will run his/her second dog after all other competitors with two dogs have run their first dog. A handler MAY NOT designate which dog is to run first.

 

B. To implement this, all handlers with one dog will be drawn randomly, one at a time, and divided alternately into two lots. Entries of handlers with two dogs will be added to the first lot. Entries of the first lot will then be drawn for running order. First dog drawn runs first, second dog drawn runs second, etc. When a handler with two dogs is drawn a second time that entry will be placed in the second lot for re-draw. Upon completion of drawing the first lot, the trial Secretary will randomly draw the second lot to continue the running order.

 

C. The HA suggests that where trials allow three dogs to compete that the running order be drawn as follows: All handlers with one dog will be drawn and randomly divided into three (3) lots. All handlers with two (2) dogs will be drawn and randomly placed in two of the three lots. All handlers with three (3) dogs will be drawn and added to each of the three (3) lots. Beginning with the first lot each lot shall be drawn to determine the running order.

 

 

 

 

How about some discussion on this topic? For? Against? Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Good for you, Robin, for bringing this up. We don't discuss this sort of issue here very much at all, and I think it's a good forum for bringing up proposals, discussing them, and encouraging people to contact their district directors to make their feelings known.

 

My comments are based on understanding that more will be involved than what you outlined, and my remarks are mainly oriented towards those aspects of the proposal as I understand it.

 

I had a knee-jerk reaction when I first read about this, to simply say that I favored it. Why? Because I am not in favor of people running mulitple dogs having slots without dog's names (so they can choose which dog to run in which slot themselves); not in favor of people running out of order (because they got there late, or for whatever reason); and because I think there are people (few as they may be) who will try and take advantage of any opportunity they have to stack the deck in their favor or just bend the rules.

 

I was fortunate that, in writing to my two district directors and the originator of the proposal, to receive a thoughtful, kind, and explanatory reply from Dick Williams concerning his feelings about this. That, plus what I've read elsewhere, has made me aware of a few things that I didn't think of initially.

 

One is that, at trials where an all-day set-out person is also running a dog, they often run first in the day/class. That way, set-out throughout the day is consistent and a person who works hard all day is able to get their run done while they are fresh. So, a good reason for an exception to this proposal.

 

Second is that a few trials are day-of-trial-entry and therefore can't have a random draw done in advance - or done at all, as entries may be taken upon arrival. This is pretty rare in the US but is very common in the UK, and acceptable under ISDS rules. For reasons of weather, this type of entry may make sense in some locations at certain times of year. Another, infequent perhaps, reason for an exception to this proposal.

 

Third is that this proposal would add another layer of rules on those who put on trials, and remove their ability to make judgement calls on how to best set up the running orders at their trials. While some trials, by their very size or nature, must run absolutely tightly and precisely, there are others that can be a bit more flexible, allowing people with longer distances to travel or travel/health/accessibility problems to be accomodated without any unreasonable advantage given.

 

One comment that Mr. Williams made to me was that some folks, after discussion, favored the idea that this rule, which applies to National Finals, should be a guideline rather than another rule for sanctioned trials. Then, if someone were to feel that a running order was not fair (one person's dogs being run too closely together), the person could discuss this with the trial manager prior to the trial. This would also allow for day-of-trial entries and so on.

 

I think this is anothe proposal that, on the surface, seems simple and sensible - but yet maybe really not accomplish what is intended. I think that, in general, sheepdog and cattledog trialling under USBCHA is largely based on personal integrity and less on a boatload of nit-picking rules and regulations. I'd like to see it remain that way. People can show their support for particular trials, trial hosts, and trial management by choosing to enter and run, or not enter and run.

 

I am a big believer that basic, sensible rules are necessary for most endeavors - but, as you can't legislate personal morality, you will always have those that try to subvert or bypass rules and regulations. On the other hand, over-regulating will only hurt those who are well-meaning but who do need some flexibility (handicapped triallers, trial helpers, and so on).

 

JMO, from a novice and on-the-sidelines point of view, and risking appearing extremely ignorant {;^).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts on this....

 

While I understand the desire to make the draws as fair as possible for all handlers (those with one dog and those with multiple) I do not want the HA to dictate to trial managers how the draw MUST be made and I do not believe the HA has the resources to enforce this rule (so why make it). I am against making this rule for all HA trials. I have recommended to one of my Directors that section 15 be changed to state this is how the Finals draw will be made and it is recommended for all HA trials (in much the same way the water tub on the field is required for the finals and recommended for all trials). I feel the rules should be clear in how they are to be applied (Finals only or All trials) and should reflect how the HA applies the rules (what you say = what you do). Finally, if you do not like the way a trial is run, don't enter; there is no need to have the HA dictate how every detail of every trial is to be run.

 

Another example of unclear rules is in section 14 (right above the section in question). As written, does it apply to all trials or just the finals? It is worded is similar to section 15 in terms of scope of application.

 

SECTION 14: ENTRIES

A. Entry forms must be duly completed and logged at the Trial Secretary's office by the entry deadline. Entry fees shall be $200 per dog in Open and $150 per dog in Nursery, and must be paid on entry.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Against.

 

I feel that it would be a good way to decide on the run order, but I don't feel it should be mandated as the only way for every trial, each trial is different and trial hosts should be left to determine how they set up their run orders.

 

I do think that leaving it open for handlers to decide which dog they plan on running in which slot should be strongly discouraged just to reduce the suspicion of it being used to gain an unfair advantage over other handlers/dogs. I would like to believe that the majority of handlers would approach the opportunity to decide with a strong sense of good sportsmanship and not make their decision based on gaining an unfair advantage.

 

But, people are people, pass one rule to try to keep them honest and they just find another way to gain the advantage. I think that some make a sport out of applying and interpreting rules to their advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the HA should legislate how the draw is done for local trials. The Finals and local trials really are different beasts. At the Finals, you're only guaranteed one run. Local trials are usually two one day trials and therefore quite different.

 

That said, i really don't like when draws for local trials include the dog names, and i'll tell you why. It adds an element of luck to the trial, and when i put on a trial, i want to take as much luck out of it as i can, because there's enough that you can't take out. Time of day and rerun sheep are very big considerations, so why add more "luck of the draw" if you can try to take some of it out. Deciding when you want to run what dog is based on strategy, not luck, and being able to make a smart choice reflects skillful handling and decision making, not who got luckiest when the names were drawn out of the hat a week before the trial.

 

I've heard various complaints about how the draw is done for folks with only one dog, that they have to live with the luck so why shouldn't the two-dog handlers. What i've done in the past on running orders is to split the single-dog folks into two piles and half run in the first half of the order, and the other half in the second. On the second day of the trial, those piles are reversed so a single-dog handler will run once in the morning and then once once in the afternoon over the 2 days, getting a fair shot at running in the better time of day at least once. This again takes some of the luck out of it, and i think levels the playing field for all handlers.

 

Back to the BoD motion, i'd prefer to see it not pass, and perhaps have suggested guidelines (as we did for the points deductions) instead, and include suggestions for both with and without dog names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Against.

 

In the past 6 months I have been to 6 different trials in this area, all had day of entry allowed. How do we mandate a draw for them? I am new to this area but this seems to be the norm for around here. As a guideline OK, no problem, a hard fast rule, no thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Against.

 

In the past 6 months I have been to 6 different trials in this area, all had day of entry allowed. How do we mandate a draw for them? I am new to this area but this seems to be the norm for around here. As a guideline OK, no problem, a hard fast rule, no thank you.

 

That is my main issue with the mandate- although you can put empty slots in your initial draw and assign people to those, but I agree that it should be left to the trial hosts. I would file this under "vote with your feet", if a trial is traditionally abusive about setting up run orders. Mostly, I think we take trial hosts for granted and making more rules they have to worry about is not constructive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, I don't believe I am out of line to mention that, while Dick Williams did second the motion, he has also told me in his email that he expects to vote "no" on this issue, after discussing it and giving it much thought.

 

While bowing to Robin's good logic and experience, I still would stick with dog's names being assigned at the draw. That way, the element of luck remains for all competitors, and some can't utilize strategy in the draw to benefit their chances. I'm not too keen on your morning/afternoon concept, either. To me, that sounds like some folks will have to be present Sat morning and Sun afternoon to run, and sit around in between, while others can arrive Sat afternoon and leave after Sun morning.

 

But, being someone who has never and won't ever put on a trial, I think that those items (assigning dogs' names or not, and how to allot single-dog competitors) should be strictly up to the trial host/director/management, as long as they strive for fairness, which is what I am convinced Robin is doing. Folks who don't like it, don't have to compete at venues that utilize it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, i really don't like when draws for local trials include the dog names, and i'll tell you why. It adds an element of luck to the trial, and when i put on a trial, i want to take as much luck out of it as i can, because there's enough that you can't take out. Time of day and rerun sheep are very big considerations, so why add more "luck of the draw" if you can try to take some of it out. Deciding when you want to run what dog is based on strategy, not luck, and being able to make a smart choice reflects skillful handling and decision making, not who got luckiest when the names were drawn out of the hat a week before the trial.

 

The motivation behind the random draw is to make is as fair as possible for ALL competitors. Your rationale unfairly disadvantages anyone running one dog. Someone running two, or in some trials, three dogs has several chances on each day of the trial to place their best dogs to best advantage. Splitting the single dog handlers into two groups doesn't negate that advantage at all if each day's running is an independent trial. That would only work if the trial were one trial, two runs over two days. What you are arguing is that it's OK to disadvantage someone with one dog at one trial if you don't disadvantage them at a completely different trial (held on a day when conditions might be completely different)

 

The luck of the draw is part of trialing. I don't think your approach levels the playing field at all. It stacks the deck in favor of handlers with more dogs and greater familiarity with the trial flock and local conditions.

 

I disagree with Mark that the HA has no way of enforcing the rule if passed. Any trial not adhering to the rule gets their sanctioning pulled, after the fact if necessary. The first time that ever happens, handlers will make their displeasure known.

 

If the HA should legislate how the draw is managed at local trials, what should it legislate? From what I can see there are absolutely no standards at all for sanctioned trials. Any trial can be sanctioned regardless of how it is run. The rules for the Finals and local trials do not need to be the same because they are different beasts, but there ought to be some standards for local trials and a fair draw ought to be the bare minimum, regardless of how that is mandated.

 

Pearse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pearse,

 

I didn't say it had no way of enforcing the rule; I said it didn't have the resources to enforce it. How much time must be spent investigating every infraction, determine if the posted running order was what was actually run (due to changes made between posting and trial day), report back to the BoD, have th BoD discuss and vote, etc.

 

BTW people running one dog are already at a disadvantage to those running multiple dogs simply because with multiple dogs they have more chances on the field with the sheep. No changes to the running order will eliminate this.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this proposal is a good idea. I've been to some trials where the running order is just a list of the handlers with no dogs' names included and I happen not to like the idea of the handlers that are running multiple dogs being able to go to their trucks and select which of their dogs they want to run when according to the present conditions of weather, sheep etc. IMO this is an advantage given to people running multiple dogs and not a "strategy" that the handler with one dog can participate in. By having the luxury of choice one can run one dog in the morning both days of a trial, or choose to bring out a certain dog either before or after the sheep have been recycled. Whatever the case may be the handler with multiple dogs is afforded an advantage that the handler with one dog is not. Rules should be about leveling the field for everyone. The HA should be about fairness to all the handlers and not allow the rules to have built in advantages for some and not others.

 

The trials that I referred to left the dogs' names off the running order in the most blatant way IMO. They listed the dogs' names for the Nursery and the 'educational classes' and omitted them for just the Open class.

 

Paragraph A of Section 15 spells out the clear intent of the rule (in capital letters no less). Nowhere does it say that the rule is meant to be applied only at the Finals, this is just how the interpretation has evolved over the years. The rule can be obeyed by simply placing the dog's name on the running order next to the person that is running it. If the order is reversed for the second day of the trial then every dog is reversed, not just the ones being run by handlers with one dog.

 

Ray Coapman

 

Mark,

Enforcement is easy. With email it's very easy to let your director or the President know what went down at a trial. With a laptop one can actually do this from the field if ones chooses, and include a copy of the printed running order. A "police force" is not needed, most of our rules are policed this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the order is reversed for the second day of the trial then every dog is reversed, not just the ones being run by handlers with one dog.

 

Ray Coapman

Ray,

 

Can the second day (a separate USBCHA sanctioned trial) simply use a reversed running order as opposed to a separately drawn running order AND is this fair to those who have been drawn in the middle of day 1?

 

Does section 14 apply to all trials? No where does it say it only applies to the finals.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this proposal is a good idea. I've been to some trials where the running order is just a list of the handlers with no dogs' names included and I happen not to like the idea of the handlers that are running multiple dogs being able to go to their trucks and select which of their dogs they want to run when according to the present conditions of weather, sheep etc. IMO this is an advantage given to people running multiple dogs and not a "strategy" that the handler with one dog can participate in. By having the luxury of choice one can run one dog in the morning both days of a trial, or choose to bring out a certain dog either before or after the sheep have been recycled. Whatever the case may be the handler with multiple dogs is afforded an advantage that the handler with one dog is not. Rules should be about leveling the field for everyone. The HA should be about fairness to all the handlers and not allow the rules to have built in advantages for some and not others.

 

The trials that I referred to left the dogs' names off the running order in the most blatant way IMO. They listed the dogs' names for the Nursery and the 'educational classes' and omitted them for just the Open class.

 

Paragraph A of Section 15 spells out the clear intent of the rule (in capital letters no less). Nowhere does it say that the rule is meant to be applied only at the Finals, this is just how the interpretation has evolved over the years. The rule can be obeyed by simply placing the dog's name on the running order next to the person that is running it. If the order is reversed for the second day of the trial then every dog is reversed, not just the ones being run by handlers with one dog.

 

Ray Coapman

 

Mark,

Enforcement is easy. With email it's very easy to let your director or the President know what went down at a trial. With a laptop one can actually do this from the field if ones chooses, and include a copy of the printed running order. A "police force" is not needed, most of our rules are policed this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry...pushed some key too quickly.

 

I'm also against the motion. Mark is correct. One dog handlers are disadvantaged simply by having one dog. I can't even imagine having to defend that a trial manager complied with the awkwardly worded draw provisions of Section 15. Seems to me that one dog runners can still be drawn at any point in the order, correct? So, with regard to positioning, who thinks they're gaining what?

 

Lori Cunningham

Milton, PA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

Enforcement is easy. With email it's very easy to let your director or the President know what went down at a trial. With a laptop one can actually do this from the field if ones chooses, and include a copy of the printed running order. A "police force" is not needed, most of our rules are policed this way.

I would hope the BoD investigates to confirm reports. Which means no police force is needed but an investigation is still required.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

I mentioned reversing the order on the second day just to address Robin's comment. If it were my trial I would have a separate draw for both days.

 

We're talking about Section 15. It's intent is very clear IMO. Bringing Section 14 into the conversation is merely an effort to divert and confuse the discussion. I'm in favor of this proposal because it addresses an unfairness that I've noticed at trials. It is within the HA's power and scope to address this and I think it should be done. As I said the HA should be all about fairness to all the competitors.

 

Ray Coapman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, assuming that dog names are required...is the problem solved?

 

Is the BOD going to investigate & challenge a trial manager on a running order in which trial mgt's best running dogs are all in what are considered the "winning" the end of day slots?

 

Is the BOD going to challenge a trial manager who allows someone with a long drive home to bump into an earlier empty slot?

 

Is the BOD going to investigate a trial manager who changed a running order when a volunteer set out person wasn't relieved with enough time to get down to let a dog out to pee & get to the post in time for their scheduled run?

 

Is the BOD going to investigate a complaint from a disgruntled one dog handler who had two draws in the perceived disadvantage of the middle of the day?

 

Yikes. I agree with some of these moves & some I don't, but it's not my call. If a handler has problem with something, talk to trial management like a grown up. Fairness comes in many different forms, and some forms won't suit everyone. Hands off, BOD.

 

Lori Cunningham

Milton, PA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray,

 

I bring section 14 into it because of people's interpretation of section 15; "If it does not clearly state the rule applies to only the finals then it applies to ALL trials". If this interpretation is correct, then section 14 applies to ALL trials just like section 15. Clearly, no one believes section 14 applies to ALL trials. So are we to interpret each section differently? When not clearly stated, do we get to pick and choose if it applies to all or just the finals?

 

The rules should be altered to clearly state if it applies to all or just the finals.

 

Dictating running order draws will not level the playing field in all trials across the country.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

I mentioned reversing the order on the second day just to address Robin's comment. If it were my trial I would have a separate draw for both days.

 

We're talking about Section 15. It's intent is very clear IMO. Bringing Section 14 into the conversation is merely an effort to divert and confuse the discussion. I'm in favor of this proposal because it addresses an unfairness that I've noticed at trials. It is within the HA's power and scope to address this and I think it should be done. As I said the HA should be all about fairness to all the competitors.

 

Ray Coapman

I do think Robin is having a separate draw for each day, but each one-dog handler will find themselves in a "morning" draw one day, and an "afternoon" draw the other day, not simply to run "in reverse" the second day. This is, I feel, to provide fairness to one-dog handlers.

 

I really doubt that Mark is making any effort to "divert and confuse" but rather to point out that consistency would benefit the HA in terms of understanable rules and regulations, should anyone question how they are interpreted and administered.

 

I think most everyone agrees that fairness to competitors is the goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with Mark that the HA has no way of enforcing the rule if passed. Any trial not adhering to the rule gets their sanctioning pulled, after the fact if necessary. The first time that ever happens, handlers will make their displeasure known.

 

OK, so I spend $200 for the weekend entries, win the class (ya'll stop laughing!) and then find out that I just had a very expensive fun weekend. Why should a handler loose points due to a trial hosts mistake? That's giving the host a good bit of power isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so I spend $200 for the weekend entries, win the class (ya'll stop laughing!) and then find out that I just had a very expensive fun weekend. Why should a handler loose points due to a trial hosts mistake? That's giving the host a good bit of power isn't it?

 

That would not be good....other organizations that we have been involved in placed a fine to the event hosts when they were found in violation of rules, then they would also consider issuing a fine, revolking points earned or banning membership for those that participated in the violation. All other points earned were unaffected.

 

Those organizations also had tons of rules and had amendments, additions and removals every year. Talk about expense and time to review, enforce and republish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking inside from out, this seems like a scenario of a few bad apples ruins it for everyone. If those few bad apples are *known* then perhaps the trial managers ought to do their best to keep things on an even playing field. And, if certain trials allow this sort of thing to happen, then perhaps the best thing to do is not patronize the trial. I don't see any way to enforce this, so I would vote "no".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As written, section B would imply that computer draws would not be allowed and section B could not be enforced as written without an impartial witness.

 

I don't read it that way at all. Section B makes no determination on how the lots are to be drawn. Any computer algorithm would, by necessity, divide the running order into N groups (N being the maximum number of dogs run by any given handler), randomly assign teams to one of the N groups and then randomly seed the groups from 1 - N. Which is exactly how section B requires it to be done and which guarantees that handlers running more than one dog all run their first dog before any of them run their second dog.

 

Pearse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't read it that way at all.

Pearse

Since people wish to be literal.....

 

Upon completion of drawing the first lot, the trial Secretary will randomly draw the second lot to continue the running order.

This tells me that a person must randomly draw, not the trial secretary has them randomly drawn. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...