USBCHA BOD motion on running orders

[Pearse]

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?

 

No trial host wants 60 handlers on the phone demanding refunds because they deliberately jiggered with the running order to give someone an unfair advantage (which I believe is really really rare), and in my opinion, when that kind of jiggering happens it's usually due to pressure on the trial host from certain handlers. Giving the trial hosts a rule to fall back on almost certainly eliminates this practice.

 

The biggest problem this rule introduces is that at most of the trials we host/attend, hosts are trying to keep costs down by having handlers rotate sheep setting and pen duties. This usually requires some adjusting of the running order. So how do you ensure as fair a draw as possible while giving trial hosts the flexibility to meet their needs in running the trial?

 

How big a problem is this? How many complaints is the HA getting per year, and how many appear to be actual cases of manipulating the order to give someone an advantage?

 

Pearse

[Mark Billadeau]

If fairness is the goal shouldn't the HA also enact rules about how many times the sheep can be rerun and how many different dog/handler teams can set sheep during the trial?

 

The sheep will change each time they are rerun and unlike time of day for each run this can be dictated by the HA.

How the sheep are handled bringing them out and holding them may have a greater impact on the fairness of the runs than the time of day. Differences in how dog/handler teams interact with each group can influence how those sheep react to the teams they set for.

 

Devil's advocate

[Debbie Meier]

How big a problem is this? How many complaints is the HA getting per year, and how many appear to be actual cases of manipulating the order to give someone an advantage?

 

Pearse

 

Pearse, if I understand Herbert correctly in the posts he made over at the Working Stockdog Forum, it does not happen often, I think he said 3-4 times a year and I was taking that as overall not just in regards to this issue, but I may have misuderstood him. Here is the link to the thread, his comments are on page 2: http://kensmuir.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=...3c25bbb80e97214

[juliepoudrier]

Gee, I don't know what to think. As someone who has run just one dog and has run two dogs (and who now has three open dogs), who has gotten to choose where to run a dog and who has stayed where I was put in the running order, I can see why the HA might want such a proposal. I'd have to think on it some more before deciding yea or nay though.

 

I do want to address some comments, though:

 

1. I personally don't like to see people moved up into empty slots on the running order simply because they have a "long way to go" or some other special need. Given the choice, *everyone* would like to run early on the last day and get on home. Allowing some folks to do it and not others is wrong, IMO. If you're that desperate to get on the road, load up and go, and forfeit your run. That may sound harsh, but IME it's pretty much never the little hats that are being given this opportunity. You know when you enter a trial that you might be stuck there till the bitter end on the last day. If the likelihood of that happening is a problem, withdraw and head home when you want to. I think Pearse's comment: "when that kind of jiggering happens it's usually due to pressure on the trial host from certain handlers. Giving the trial hosts a rule to fall back on almost certainly eliminates this practice." speaks to this.

 

2. Re: Whether a computer can draw the order: I think this is just a matter of semantics and the rules were in place long before there were programs created to do the draw. I see Mark's point, but really if we wanted to nitpick, there would be an official secretary for every trial if that rule were interpreted literally, and of course that's not the case. And of course the whole statement could simply be reworded to leave out whether it's a human or a machine doing the draw.

 

3. Robin's attempt at leveling the playing field by making sure one-dag handlers get to run at different times of the day: it makes sense in theory, but as someone else noted, trial conditions change from day to day, and while good running might happen in the morning the first day, it could be better in the afternoon the second day and if the one-dog person got drawn in the afternoon on day 1 and morning on day 2 then that person actually had less of a chance to fall into a good running slot, if that makes sense (that is, if their draw was left entirely to chance, they might have a statistically greater chance of landing in one of the better running times).

 

4. Reversing the order: bad idea IMO and I hate trials that do it. The dogs in the middle of the order run in the middle both days, so only dogs at the beginning and end of the running order actually see a change.

 

5. Getting to choose when to run which dog. I don't like the idea, although I have taken advantage of the opportunity to pick and choose myself. Again, it really does give the multiple dog handler a slight advantage over the single-dog handler, who has no such choice. For example, I know Twist runs better in the mornings, but should I always be allowed to choose to run her first (of my two or three dogs) in the order when others don't get such a choice?

 

6. And since it was brought up (even though it doesn't really have anything to do with drawing run orders per se): I really prefer to see one person or a team do all the set out. How the sheep are handled in the pens and at set out can make a *huge* difference in sheepy attitudes around the course. I realize that trials must sometimes count on volunteers to do this job, but as someone noted, this might be a situation that creates an even larger disadvantage for some teams than simply where they land in the draw. Pearse notes that trial managers use volunteers to keep costs down. In this part of the world, set out for two days costs $300. ISTM that amount could come out of payback (if there is one) since having a paid set out means more consistent handling of the sheep which gives every competitor a better chance at a decent run, or tack $2 on to each entry of a 60-run trial and set out is nearly paid for.

 

I can't remember all the other points people made, so I'll stop here.

 

J.

[btrent]

I am in favor of drawing the dogs' names and not just the handlers' names. We have had quite a bit of discussion on this topic both locally and regionally, in terms of the USBCHA trials and the smaller (non-USBCHA) local club. If it is via this rule change or some other way, I think this needs to be at least looked into/acknowledged. Handlers with two or three dogs should not be able to choose the order in which they run them any more than I am able to choose where I run my one dog. This should apply to all classes. What we have seen a lot locally with USBCHA is that the Open class is drawn with handlers' names only and the Pro-Novice and Nursery are drawn with both dog/handlers' names. Obviously the process is in place to draw the dogs' names but is just not being used.

 

There are always accommodations to be made for workers'/setout helpers running orders, people who have unforeseen travel or health circumstances, a dog who comes up lame the day before the trial so a sub needs to be made, etc., but these are the exceptions to the case.

 

I am always in favor of voting with my checkbook, so to speak, but a handler does not know until the running order is posted whether the dogs' names have been drawn, or not. In most cases by that time it is too late to withdraw without penalty.

 

I am glad that this has come under consideration even if no particular action is taken at this time; at least it is getting discussed.

 

thank you,

 

--Billy Trent

[Eileen Stein]

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.

 

Yes, but I wonder if that would work for this rule. If it were made mandatory that the draw be conducted as specified in Sec. 15 for all sanctioned trials, presumably that would be because the HA decided that these were minimum requirements for a trial to be fair. If the host then does not draw dogs as well as handlers, or draws randomly rather than in the manner specified, wouldn't that mean that the trial could not be considered fair? And how could points earned in an unfair trial be allowed to stand?

[Sue R]

If fairness is the goal shouldn't the HA also enact rules about how many times the sheep can be rerun and how many different dog/handler teams can set sheep during the trial?

How many trials would be eliminated by mandating regulations pertaining to these items?

 

Fairness is the goal, IMO, but regulations need to be reasonable and workable. And guidelines can be useful in place of regulations to keep this largely grassroots system functional.

[Amelia]

Hello all,

When I started trialing, every one I went to drew the hands with a dog and everything else was decided by the committee or trial producer and there was peace in the kingdom. Well, at least I don't remember big problems with the draw. Then a few trials started drawing the hands only and here we are. We're talking about dog trialing folks, not international finance. Why are we nit-picking it to death? If we keep on, it really will get screwed up.

 

Personally, I don't care whether or not hands are drawn with a dog, but it's probably a good idea in the interest of fairness. If I run in the heat of the day both days, if I'm the last dog on Sunday with a long drive home, If I'm running 1 dog and joe-blow has the advantage, I don't care. If I don't like the trial, I won't be back. If those things happen and I do like the trial, I'll be back again and take my chances.

 

In the mean time I'm going to train my dogs to the best of my ability to be the best that I can make them. I'm going to condition them as well as I can and I'm going to pit them against all-comers with the intention of winning. Not saying that I do, but that's my plan. I train my dogs with the goal of being up for anything, wild-ass range sheep, stupid-ass hair sheep, goats, blind outruns, big outruns, treacherous courses, bad set out, a strong draw to wherever, odds that are stacked against me, and unfair running orders. Bring it on bad boys and girls, I'm ready.

Cheers all,

[Debbie Meier]

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.

Yes, but I wonder if that would work for this rule. If it were made mandatory that the draw be conducted as specified in Sec. 15 for all sanctioned trials, presumably that would be because the HA decided that these were minimum requirements for a trial to be fair. If the host then does not draw dogs as well as handlers, or draws randomly rather than in the manner specified, wouldn't that mean that the trial could not be considered fair? And how could points earned in an unfair trial be allowed to stand?

 

Was everything about the trial unfair? Or was the unfairness limited to someone earning points that had an unfair advantage? How much responsibility does the HA have to their members when it comes to giving points that they worked for at trials that were advertised as sanctioned events? I guess it could be said that the other handlers entered and ran in good faith with the understanding that they would earn points if they placed high enough.

 

Just remember, I don't think this would be a good rule to apply to all trials.

[Journey]

If the host then does not draw dogs as well as handlers, or draws randomly rather than in the manner specified, wouldn't that mean that the trial could not be considered fair? And how could points earned in an unfair trial be allowed to stand?

 

How would anyone other than the host know this though? Punish all for one's mistake?

 

I still am against this becoming "rule".

[rac]

QUOTE(Mark Billadeau @ Nov 9 2009, 02:31 PM) *

If fairness is the goal shouldn't the HA also enact rules about how many times the sheep can be rerun and how many different dog/handler teams can set sheep during the trial?

 

 

Sue,

Mark is again trying to discuss this issue by using other issues as debating points, a 'straw man' tactic. Of course the quality of how the sheep are set at a trial has nothing to do with how the running order is made and whether or not dogs' names appear on it. "Paid set-out" vs a crew made of several volunteers is a whole other issue worthy of its own thread topic.

 

 

I also agree with Billy's point in that by the time one becomes aware that the running order consists of just handlers' names you're not going to be able to get your money back. You could possibly 'vote with your feet' (and checkbook) if these trials would say clearly on their entry form that the USBCHA guidelines and recommended method for drawing a running order will not be adhered to. Drawing the running order that includes the dogs' names is not difficult though. There's no real reason for a trial's running order not to include the dogs. It is a "dog" trial after all, isn't it ?

 

Ray Coapman

[Eileen Stein]

Debby and Karen, I certainly wasn't arguing in favor of making this rule change. What I was saying was that IF the HA concludes that sanctioned trials cannot be fair unless the draw is conducted in accordance with Sec. 15, then it would be hard to justify letting points stand if they were earned at a trial where the host did not draw in that way (i.e., an "unfair" trial). It seems to me there are three possibilities:

 

1. The HA considers drawing in accordance with Sec. 15 to be the minimal standard of fairness for sanctioned trials -- in that case, make this rule change, and do not count points earned at non-conforming trials.

 

2. The HA considers drawing in accordance with Sec. 15 to be the fairest way to draw for sanctioned trials, but that other ways of drawing (e.g., drawing the handler only, drawing randomly from a hat) also meet minimal standards of fairness -- in that case, recommend the Sec. 15 procedure but don't require it (i.e., what they do now, although ideally with greater clarity of wording).

 

3. The HA considers there's no difference in fairness among all the recognized methods of drawing for sanctioned trials -- in that case there's no need for the HA to speak to the subject at all.

 

 

Ray, what I see in Mark's posts are arguments by analogy, rather than "straw man" arguments. As I read him, he is saying: "Just as Sec. 14 applies only to the finals even though it doesn't explicitly say so, so too Sec. 15A & B applies only to the finals even though it doesn't explicitly say so" and "Just as the manner of setting out sheep and the number of times sheep are run are issues that affect the fairness of trials which would be unwise or impractical for the HA to regulate, so too drawing the running order is an issue that affects the fairness of trials which it would be unwise or impractical for the HA to regulate."

[Debbie Meier]

Debby and Karen, I certainly wasn't arguing in favor of making this rule change.

 

I just wanted to make sure the everyone reading understands that I'm not in agreement with the rule change, some people take it as being agreeable to the rule change when you are willing to take the steps to talk about how the change could be applied, enforced, etc., or they read just one post neglecting the previous.

 

 

1. The HA considers drawing in accordance with Sec. 15 to be the minimal standard of fairness for sanctioned trials -- in that case, make this rule change, and do not count points earned at non-conforming trials.

 

I don't see how establishing a particular standard of draw means that that standard is the fairest, it is just establishing that the HA endorses and requires this particular method. If that method is not followed the following concequenses are applied. Personally I don't think it would be in the best interest of the HA or the handlers if a rule was broken and all points were removed from the event, the penalty does not match the crime nor is the punishment limited to the offenders.

 

If we want to talk about the fairest way to draw...In all reality, is it fair that handlers with more then one dog get their other dog moved to the 2nd half of the day (draw), or would the fairest way to handle it be to just put them in the draw just like everyone else, if they get drawn back to back tough luck?

 

Deb

[Shoofly]

If we want to talk about the fairest way to draw...In all reality, is it fair that handlers with more then one dog get their other dog moved to the 2nd half of the day (draw), or would the fairest way to handle it be to just put them in the draw just like everyone else, if they get drawn back to back tough luck?Deb

 

You know, that's a good point.

[Debbie Meier]

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but I'm looking at how the HA decides that the draw be done has nothing to do with fairness, it has to do with setting a nationwide standard. When you look at it from that direction you take "cheating or unfairness" out of the mix, now you are down to rule followed or rule broken and what is the penalty. Whose responsibility was it to follow the rule...the host, who potentially gained from the rule being broken, the handler that potentially recieved special treatment via the infraction, who should get penalized? IMO, not the rest of the handlers by not counting their points.

 

Also, to really get a feel for what should be done I would make sure that an e-mail/letter to all the past years event hosts and ask what their opinion is with a explanation as to why this is coming about. I would bet that you would see a huge reduction in the number of trials that do not have the dogs identified just by doing that, basically alerting them to the problem.

 

 

Deb

[rac]

Eileen,

I can see your point, but I still think bringing up the set-out issue was a straw man. We spend our time and energy beating up this straw man only to see another one set up for us to try to take down later. All the while the real issue isn't being discussed.

 

The point isn't to fix all the possible issues or rules that harbor unfairness with this one proposal. This one issue has come to the front, and we can do something about it. It is not difficult to see the unfairness that exists by purposely leaving dogs' names off the running order and handlers with multiple dogs being allowed to choose which dog to run when. Nor is it difficult to remedy the situation... just put the dogs' names on the running order. The problem isn't any larger than that. Making it appear larger, or more difficult to deal with is, IMO, not bringing the discussion along. Most of the participants in this discussion can see the unfairness, some people are reluctant to make a rule to stop the unfair practice, but then some people don't like any rules about anything. It would be nice if we could all get along without rules, but history and experience will tell us that some people will tend to take unfair advantages if there is no governance. So... again I say that dogs' names should be included on running orders. To leave them out and allow people to go to their trucks and choose which dog to run when is unfair to the handlers at that trial with just one dog. Does the HA want this kind of unfairness built into the system ? I would hope not.

[Eileen Stein]

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but I'm looking at how the HA decides that the draw be done has nothing to do with fairness, it has to do with setting a nationwide standard.

 

What is the reason for having a nationwide standard? For its own sake?

 

If the rule is not intended to address the fairness issue, what issue is it intended to address?

[juliepoudrier]

If we want to talk about the fairest way to draw...In all reality, is it fair that handlers with more then one dog get their other dog moved to the 2nd half of the day (draw), or would the fairest way to handle it be to just put them in the draw just like everyone else, if they get drawn back to back tough luck?

 

Deb

I think this is a very valid point.

 

J.

[Carson Crazies]

So... again I say that dogs' names should be included on running orders. To leave them out and allow people to go to their trucks and choose which dog to run when is unfair to the handlers at that trial with just one dog. Does the HA want this kind of unfairness built into the system ? I would hope not.

 

My dog and I have run in a big grand total of three Open trials together thus far, so take this as it may be. I haven't given much thought to how the draw is done... I show up and I run my dog where I'm told. I don't feel like there needs to be a specific rule as to how the draw is done on a local level. We're mostly educated adults and I'd like to think the trial hosts can figure that part out for themselves.

 

Given my inexperience I'll admit to raising an eyebrow seeing the dogs' names NOT on the running order at a trial. I suppose I briefly considered that there might be an advantage to having more than one dog and being able to pick and choose when to run one's dogs, but still I show up and I run my dog when I'm told to. It hadn't occurred to me to complain about it honestly. However, I don't think it would be out of the realm of reasonable to list dogs with handlers, and I agree that it seems to be a small issue with an easy solution. But yet it's just not a hill I'm ready to die on - and I'm the one with one dog.

 

I realize that we're talking about the setout as being a straw man, but having been on the setting end of things recently I can tell you... the treatment of the sheep up top has a whole lot to do with how the sheep come down the field. If we're talking about fairness then IMO good, consistent setout and penwork is a good equalizer. Do we need a rule for it? I don't think so, but it's a valid thought I think if we're talking about fairness and evening the playing field and conditions for competitors. I'd be far more annoyed at my sheep being buggered up top then I would be about the fact that I can't choose when to run which dog. It would be impractical to make rules about setout, but certainly the handler/dog/list thing would be easy to fix.

 

Put me in the camp of don't know any better yet - but I could go either way on it. Heck... the folks with two dogs that can strategize when to run their dogs are going to beat me and my dog on experience anyway.

[Debbie Meier]

What is the reason for having a nationwide standard? For its own sake?

 

If the rule is not intended to address the fairness issue, what issue is it intended to address?

 

 

That's the point, if you want to pass a rule to eliminate the problem of handlers picking which dog they can run in which of their slots decline this motion and propose a rule that would address the unfairness issue by itself (requiring that dogs are indicated in the run order by draw or whatever) this would leave the method in which hosts conducts the draw up to them.

 

Why require every trial to follow the same draw format nationwide when the draw is not the problem? Isn't the problem that handlers are being allowed to decide which of their dogs run in which of their slots.

[SoloRiver]

As far as I can tell, the objection to this rule is based in a more general objection to the BOD making and enforcing a rule change in and of itself (i.e., the generally libertarian nature of dog handlers) and has nothing to do with the fairness or unfairness of the proposed change. It seems obvious on the face of the issue that drawing dogs' names along with handlers' is more fair than allowing some handlers to decide when to run dogs and not allowing other handlers the same freedom.

 

It isn't possible to make the playing field truly level, and that's fine -- it's the nature of working dogs. There are some rules, such as requiring the same crew to do set out for an entire trial, that may be impractical or difficult to adhere to for many trials. And I am totally cool with showing up whenever and running my dog and taking whatever comes. But, this simple rule change is so, well, simple to implement and so patently fair that I am not sure I understand the objections to it, aside from the "you're not the boss of me" reaction that is part of the charm of dog trialing culture.

[Guest herbertholmes]

As you can see, there is a great variation of opinion about what is right and what is wrong in drawing running orders.

I am not argueing for one way or another, but am trying to get the board to reinforce the fact that section 15 of the rules does not apply to any trial other than the national finals. They are going to do this by voting this motion down, or they are going to change the application to include all sanctioned trials by passing the motion.

This will gives myself and or Francis backing when we tell people where this rule applies. When a member ask about a rule, we tell them what has always been done in the past, along with a legal opinion that history has interpreted the rule correctly Francis nor I do not change the application of a rule unless the BOD passes a motion to do so. Attention to this rule was brought before the BOD because it is the single most common complaint/ rules question I get ( 3 or 4 times per year, at most). So, this discussion will get it out in the open, people will be aware of the BOD action to come in a few days and another thing will be clear and all will be happy, living forever after in blissfull dog trial harmony. That is the way it will be,won't it ??

 

I think the USBCHA in pretty non intrusive into the every trials, and I hope they,we,continue to be that way. However, if enough people are concerned about something, such as the running order rule, then the BOD needs to look, discuss, and make an informed descion. They do a pretty good job of not "looking" for a rule to make. I also believe that a large majority of trials draw running orders based on section 15 of the rules. This is probably one reason why people get upset when they see a running order done differently,only to find out that the usbcha has no rule other than for the finals.

 

Thanks for your input, Herbert

[C Crocker]

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.

 

 

Ray Coapman

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Ray,

 

Just to add to the mix of unnamed combos, take a look at the upcoming Hopland trial's draw . I am only in the "educational" class on Friday where all the names are listed, but the Open has an interesting twist to a draw order.

 

Carolyn

[workindogs]

I've struggled with who to enter in an Open trial.....some entries open 6 months prior to the trial....hhmmm, I have an upcomer that I think might be ready, or I have an oldster that may not be fit in 6 mo. Who do I enter 6 mo in advance? Dog 1 or Dog 2? If I enter Dog 1 and it's not ready after all....do I miss the opportunity to run Dog 2 (oldy but goody). Or if I enter Dog 2 (oldy but Goody) and in 6 mo it's too arthritic....do I miss the opportunity to run my greener Dog 1? Six months!!!! How can I predict???

 

With entries limited to 2, how do I negotiate this problem? Send in my entry with Dog 1/Dog 2??? When am I supposed to make my pick? By the scratch deadline?

[C Crocker]

With entries limited to 2, how do I negotiate this problem? Send in my entry with Dog 1/Dog 2??? When am I supposed to make my pick? By the scratch deadline?

 

 

Elizabeth,

 

 

I think those are great questions. I noted this entry draw to demonstrate yet another possibility for a trial draw besides the dog's name not being listed at all. Seems it should be one way or the other for the same trial. I suspect they are many variations of draws I have not seen yet. However, being a novice new to the game I would not dare to venture an opinion. I only started in 2007 and then it seemed as most trials in my area listed dogs' names: now it seems as though most do not, at least in my class. I don't know what caused it to change.

 

See you at Hopland!

 

Carolyn