USBCHA BOD motion on running orders

[Mark Billadeau]

Eileen did a great job describing what I was trying to get across.

 

In the end I believe that making the running order draw a rule applied to all trials will have at best a very minor impact on "fairness" compared to all the other things about trialing that involve luck (or unfairness). These other things (what Ray likes to call straw men) I have brought up to try to remind people that trialing is inherently different for every run and beyond the trial host's or HA's control. As Amelia pointed out it is our job as trainers/handlers to deal with these variations. Those that consistently place well at trials have become adept at handling the natural variations in controlling animals with another animal. Why place yet another burden on trial hosts in documenting and retaining running order draws (in the event of a complaint) and why add another burden to the HA for investigating running order draws in the event of a complaint? Let's leave room for the trial hosts to make running order adjustments for circumstances that the HA and rules cannot predict or be written to cover.

 

Mark

[juliepoudrier]

Elizabeth,

I don't think your question affects the discussion about drawing a running order. Most hosts have no problem letting you substitute one dog for another at the time of the trial. I suppose the only time it would matter was if you had more than three open dogs and couldn't decide which two to run, and simply wanted to list "two dogs" on your entry, but I think most of the time people know at least one of the dogs they want to run, which makes it a non-issue. At an upcoming trial, I entered the name of the one dog I *knew* I was going to run and listed dog 2 for my second entry. That way, they would have been drawn as Twist and dog 2, which isn't the same as picking when to run dog 1 or dog 2, since clearly Twist would have to run in her slot, and dog 2, whoever it was, would run in the other slot. Another case: I entered Kat at Edgeworth, but she hurt a toe and was lame, so I substituted my young open dog (his second open trial) Pip. I don't think drawing a dog's name in the run order would affect substituting dogs unless as noted above you wanted to not name any of the dogs you planned to run.

 

J.

[Eileen Stein]

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?

 

It's interesting, as Herbert said, the different ideas people have about what is fair. To me, a running order that required someone to run their two dogs back to back would be totally unfair. Why? Because it disadvantages the handler in a major way, and is totally avoidable. You cannot avoid scheduling runs in the middle of the day, so the fairest way of dealing with that fact is a draw that makes the risk of having to run at midday equal for everyone. You CAN avoid a handler having to run his/her dogs back to back, so the fairest way of dealing with that fact is to make an adjustment to place a dog or two between their runs if they are drawn back to back (or to use a draw method which will keep that from happening). I can imagine trial hosts being very resistant to the idea that they cannot make such an adjustment, but instead must do something that they consider unfair.

 

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.

 

That is one of the fairness issues, but that is not the only fairness issue. Some people advocate making the draw method set forth in Sec. 15 a requirement for all sanctioned trials in order to avoid a random draw that can result in one handler running both their dogs before another handler with two dogs runs their first dog. Because--among other things--that could mean there is little or no gap between a handler's two runs, and many handlers who are put in that position consider it unfair.

[Debbie Meier]

Oh yeah, many different view points, you can drive yourself crazy trying to create rules to insure fairness.

 

It goes on and on, it's unfair to have to run first, that handler does not have the advantage of seeing the sheep run, it's unfair to run last, those sheep have been handled more then the sheep in earlier runs. It's unfair that someone with two dogs get's to run both of their dogs before someone with one, especially with rerun sheep where the first handler drew all 1st run sheep and the 1 dog handler drew rerun. I guess I have considered it all as falling under the luck of the draw. Just like drawing back to back, but typically it is considered in the vein of good sportsmenship to not leave back to back draws stand, it adds more stress to that handler then the others.

 

 

Here's a good one that I heard from a multidog handler when confronted with the unfairness of him getting two opportunities on the course..."you could gain this advantage too, just get a second dog to run, it's your choice", of course then you have the one dog handler that wants the draw to stand as drawn that says "drawing back to back is the risk you take when you enter two dogs, it's your choice"

[Debbie Meier]

Some people advocate making the draw method set forth in Sec. 15 a requirement for all sanctioned trials in order to avoid a random draw that can result in one handler running both their dogs before another handler with two dogs runs their first dog. Because--among other things--that could mean there is little or no gap between a handler's two runs, and many handlers who are put in that position consider it unfair.

 

 

It just struck me, Sec 15 does not prevent a handler from drawing close together or back to back nor does it prevent a multidog handler from running all his dogs before a one dog handler. It greatly reduces the chances of a handler running back to back, but it still statistically could happen especially in smaller trials, the fewer entries the greater the chance, I think.... Isn't it still possible that the multidog handler got lucky enough to draw last or nearly last in the first pool and first or near the top in the second. The remedy would still have to be same, adjusting the run order or just letting the draw stand.

 

I have the results from the Southern Iowa Cattle Trial in front of me as I type, there were 22 entries in the Open 6 were 1 dog handlers the 6 were 2 two dog handlers and 1 was a four dog handler. Put that into the Section 15 draw and see what happens. I have a copy of the score sheet, I can see how they drew, they put all the 1 dog handlers, one dog from the two dog handlers and then two dogs from the 4 dog handler together and drew or put into order then they redrew the remaining repeat dogs, all the one dog handlers had their runs done before the second half 2 dog handlers ran.

 

I hope that made sense.

 

Deb

[Pearse]

It just struck me, Sec 15 does not prevent a handler from drawing close together or back to back nor does it prevent a multidog handler from running all his dogs before a one dog handler. It greatly reduces the chances of a handler running back to back, but it still statistically could happen especially in smaller trials, the fewer entries the greater the chance, I think.... Isn't it still possible that the multidog handler got lucky enough to draw last or nearly last in the first pool and first or near the top in the second. The remedy would still have to be same, adjusting the run order or just letting the draw stand.

 

This is why no draw is truly random. Here's what happens at most trials. The draw is done, more or less the way it is laid out in Sec 15 of the rules. If someone draws at the bottom of pool A and the top of pool B, the trial secretary will either redraw Pool B or, more likely, finish drawing Pool B and simply move that team down three or four dogs so that they aren't running back to back. I've spent many hours fiddling with algorithms to do random draws for trials and handlers running multiple dogs really messes with making the draw random.

 

The same thing happens with trials where the handers are doing et out. The draw is done and the setout assignments are done as best as can be managed with the draw as it is, but if someone needs to be moved around to let them set, it is often done.

 

In neither case is anyone gaining any advantage. In the first case, the handler has no say in which dog gets moved where. In the second case, setting sheep at a trial is more of a disadvantage than an advantage and offsets any gain you might

get from being moved around in the order.

 

The intent of the motion is to reduce complaints about handlers being allowed to pick when their dog runs. Perhaps the rule could be ammended:

 

15(A)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.

 

15b The HA suggests, 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.

 

That way the rule applies to part A. The implementation of the rule is left up to the trial committee with a recommendation as to how that might be done.

 

Pearse

[Laurae]

Maybe the answer is not to change the rule so that all local sanctioned trials must abide by the rules meant for the finals, but create a set of rules/guidelines designed to address some of these issues specific to smaller trials, such as requiring trial hosts to state the dog's name along with the handler in the running order (I know some of you don't want this, but this seems to be the major impetus for the motion in the first place), requiring that handlers running one dog have a go before those with more than one dog run their second dog, etc. That way, exceptions can be made for, say, the setout help running first, but the running order would no longer potentially favor those with multiple dogs.

 

ETA: Or, you know, what Pearse said...

[Sue R]

That sounds quite reasonable and easy to understand, Pearse.

[Debbie Meier]

The intent of the motion is to reduce complaints about handlers being allowed to pick when their dog runs. Perhaps the rule could be ammended:

 

15(A)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.

 

15b The HA suggests, 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.

 

That way the rule applies to part A. The implementation of the rule is left up to the trial committee with a recommendation as to how that might be done.

 

Pearse

 

This is my thought...

 

Unless you stipulate that this rule if for all trials your still are going to have the "It's only meant for finals" comments and unless you repeat the rule taking out the suggestion you are allowing the finals to be handled how ever the trial committee wants by saying 15b is a suggestion not a rule.

[Debbie Meier]

15(A)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.

 

I don't know how many small trials there are, but using the example I have here, again the Southern Iowa Cattle Trial, yes sanctioned, by applying this rule three of the last nine dogs would have been run by the handler with 4 dogs, so he would have been up in a way closer frequency then anyone else. The only way to remedy would be to place his second dog up ahead of some of the other two dog handlers first dogs.

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I could see that handler then asking to move one of his dogs up, and I don't think it would be unreasonable. Your going to have to tell him no based on Section 15, correct?

[rac]

Carolyn,

The interesting "twist" to the running order has been fixed. I think a little twist was applied to the handler's arm and Dog 1 and Dog 2 now have names.

 

Ray

[juliepoudrier]

Debbie,

You really are talking about exceptions. At most trials handlers generally get to run two dogs. Only if the trial doesn't fill--a rarity--are third dogs allowed. Running a fourth dog in a sheepdog trial here in the east is pretty darn rare I imagine, and if it did happen, then it seems common sense could prevail about drawing the running order. Pearse's idea of making it a suggestion instead of a rule would take care of the rare cases where one person runs a gazillion dogs in a tiny little trial.

 

J.

[ThunderHill]

How about simply requiring the trial host to state in advance (on the entry form) which method of draw will be done?

 

Competitors will know for certain which type of running order they'll be facing, and then they can indeed vote with their feet without losing their entry checks.

 

Here's a peripheral take on tying the names of handlers and specific dogs together. As an occasional spectator at large Open trials, still educating myself, it helps me to see the name of both handler AND dog listed together on the running board. I'm still learning my way around and it helps me identify exactly which awesome team just ran, and helps me plan how long I have to make an excursion along the sidelines before a particular team I'd really like to see in action will be up.

[Eileen Stein]

Debbie,

You really are talking about exceptions. At most trials handlers generally get to run two dogs. Only if the trial doesn't fill--a rarity--are third dogs allowed. Running a fourth dog in a sheepdog trial here in the east is pretty darn rare I imagine, and if it did happen, then it seems common sense could prevail about drawing the running order. Pearse's idea of making it a suggestion instead of a rule would take care of the rare cases where one person runs a gazillion dogs in a tiny little trial.

 

Except Pearse isn't proposing that the "Any competitor running two dogs will run his/her second dog after all other competitors with two dogs have run their first dog" part be a suggestion. As I understand it, he would make that part a binding rule. And I don't think third dogs are that rare in small trials, even in the east. The last three trials I ran in had third dogs.

 

I dunno. Maybe the two issues presented in 15A should be considered separately, with regard to whether the HA would want to make them binding on all sanctioned trials. "A handler may not designate which dog is to run first" (or "in which slot") is a lot easier to implement, a lot easier to enforce, and probably less debatable in terms of fairness, than the other aspects of regulating the draw. (This was Ray's point, I think.)

 

One thing I firmly believe: It is always a mistake to enact rules without thinking through, in detail, every enforcement scenario you can imagine. That's essential if you want to make sure your costs don't end up outweighing your benefits.

[Sue R]

One thing I firmly believe: It is always a mistake to enact rules without thinking through, in detail, every enforcement scenario you can imagine. That's essential if you want to make sure your costs don't end up outweighing your benefits.

I think you are so right on this - so many times, when something is proposed, I am all for it or all against it - until I see/hear sound arguments both ways, and realize just how shallowly I looked at the issue in the first place.

 

No decision will please everyone or benefit everyone, but you do need to strive to make the best decision you can for the most benefits and least costs.

[Lenajo]

In the last 15 years the only time I've heard anyone get upset over running order changes is when the changed dog/hander did well. If they didn't, nobody cared.

 

The same with people running one dog or two. Nobody seems to care, until number two dog ran well.

 

Same with switching dog names out. The minute that subbed in dog does well, the complainers descend.

 

And some people will always be available to pre-complain about a potential advantage - but generally they will shut up if the object of their ire does not do well as they feared they might.

 

There will *always* be someone with sour grapes.

 

There will always be someone who gets an inadvertant advantage - maybe he lives close enough to go home and fix that shed problem before the next day, maybe she rented the trial the sheep so she knows how to handle that one particular snotty ewe, maybe the second dog is better in the morning and got a run then. Maybe the dog that is subbed in for the lame one is really a better dog.

 

Some trials will rerun sheep. Somebody is going to get an advantage - maybe - or maybe they'll get the sheep that dog #1 taught to run to the exhaust.

 

I thought we called this stuff "trialing luck". It was, I assumed, something that our generally excellent stockdog evaluation system (the isds type course) would ring out in the wash.

 

Do we really need BOD motions and rule changes to address this at the grass roots level? Or, as we've mentioned before to people who don't like certain judges or the livestock provided...do we vote with our feet as we have so effectively on other topics?

[abcollie]

OK,

 

I'm confused ... if it IS fair to run 2 dogs ... WHY is it unfair to choose which dog? Are you saying it's MORE unfair?

 

I've never really understood that thought process. If it's fair to run 2 (the 1 dog already starts at a so called "disadvantage")it suddenly becomes UNFAIRER (is that a word:@) when you choose which one?

 

To me unfair would be --- saying ONLY certain people can run 2 dogs and everyone else runs 1. Everyone has a CHOICE(even if they don't use it) to run 2 dogs.

 

I really don't care "one way or another" ... just doesn't "gel" in my mind?

[Pearse]

OK,

 

I'm confused ... if it IS fair to run 2 dogs ... WHY is it unfair to choose which dog? Are you saying it's MORE unfair?

 

I've never really understood that thought process. If it's fair to run 2 (the 1 dog already starts at a so called "disadvantage")it suddenly becomes UNFAIRER (is that a word:@) when you choose which one?

 

To me unfair would be --- saying ONLY certain people can run 2 dogs and everyone else runs 1. Everyone has a CHOICE(even if they don't use it) to run 2 dogs.

 

I really don't care "one way or another" ... just doesn't "gel" in my mind?

 

The argument is that if you are running one dog, you don't get to choose where you run that dog. It's the "luck of the draw". You may draw up first thing in the morning when it's 62F and the sheep are quiet. You may draw up 3 in the afternoon when it's 95F and the sheep have been run once or twice already.

 

If you are running two dogs, you are likely to draw a spot in the top of the order and one in the bottom of the order. If you know the sheep/conditions are going to be more favorable to a better score early, you may choose (if given the choice) to run your better dog in the more favorable spot.

 

It also happens at some trials, that some handlers running two dogs, send their entries with the dogs' names on them. They get drawn spots. Other handlers send in simply Dog

 

That gives you an unfair advantage over anyone else who is not afforded a similar accommodation.

 

That is where the dispute arises.

[Eileen Stein]

I'm confused ... if it IS fair to run 2 dogs ... WHY is it unfair to choose which dog? Are you saying it's MORE unfair?

 

Yes, I think that's basically what is being said. The handler running two dogs already has an advantage over the handler running one dog. By letting the handler running two dogs pick which dog s/he will run in which spot, you are increasing that handler's advantage over the handler with one dog, who has no such option. The initial advantage is unavoidable, but the enhanced advantage conferred by choosing the dog to suit the spot IS avoidable, simply by drawing the dog-and-handler rather than just drawing the handler.

 

If you don't have a problem with giving this extra advantage to the two-dog handler, then you won't see this as a fairness issue. If you do see a problem with giving this extra advantage to the two-dog handler, then you will see this as a fairness issue. But even if you do see it as a problem, there are reasons you still might not think it's a matter for regulation by the HA.

[Pearse]

OK,

 

I'm confused ... if it IS fair to run 2 dogs ... WHY is it unfair to choose which dog? Are you saying it's MORE unfair?

 

I've never really understood that thought process. If it's fair to run 2 (the 1 dog already starts at a so called "disadvantage")it suddenly becomes UNFAIRER (is that a word:@) when you choose which one?

 

To me unfair would be --- saying ONLY certain people can run 2 dogs and everyone else runs 1. Everyone has a CHOICE(even if they don't use it) to run 2 dogs.

 

I really don't care "one way or another" ... just doesn't "gel" in my mind?

 

The argument is that if you are running one dog, you don't get to choose where you run that dog. It's the "luck of the draw". You may draw up first thing in the morning when it's 62F and the sheep are quiet. You may draw up 3 in the afternoon when it's 95F and the sheep have been run once or twice already.

 

If you are running two dogs, you are likely to draw a spot in the top of the order and one in the bottom of the order. If you know the sheep/conditions are going to be more favorable to a better score early, you may choose (if given the choice) to run your better dog in the more favorable spot.

 

It also happens at some trials, that some handlers running two dogs, send their entries with the dogs' names on them. They get drawn spots. Other handlers send in simply Dog1 and Dog2 (mostly because it's 4 months before the trial and they honestly don't know which of their 4 dogs they are going to have ready but sometimes to gain advantage). That affords them a possible advantage over other handlers.

 

That gives you an unfair advantage over anyone else who is not afforded a similar accommodation.

 

That is where the dispute arises.

 

Herbert says he gets three or four complaints a year. There are probably as many again instances where no one complains. There are about 500 sanctioned trials per year. It's not a widespread problem it would seem.

 

Pearse

[abcollie]

If you don't have a problem with giving this extra advantage to the two-dog handler, then you won't see this as a fairness issue. If you do see a problem with giving this extra advantage to the two-dog handler, then you will see this as a fairness issue. But even if you do see it as a problem, there are reasons you might still not think it's a matter for regulation by the HA.

 

Got ya :@)

 

Well, I'm not a strong "regulation" kind of gal ... so no I don't think HA should control everything (wish someone would tell that to our goverment :@).

 

BUT the ONLY reason 2 dog handlers have an advantage is because some handlers CHOOSE not to run 2 dogs. I've been down to 1 dog and figured out quickly that it was better to run 2 :@)

[rac]

Eileen writes:

"I dunno. Maybe the two issues presented in 15A should be considered separately, with regard to whether the HA would want to make them binding on all sanctioned trials. "A handler may not designate which dog is to run first" (or "in which slot") is a lot easier to implement, a lot easier to enforce, and probably less debatable in terms of fairness, than the other aspects of regulating the draw. (This was Ray's point, I think.)"

 

And...

"Yes, I think that's basically what is being said. The handler running two dogs already has an advantage over the handler running one dog. By letting the handler running two dogs pick which dog s/he will run in which spot, you are increasing that handler's advantage over the handler with one dog, who has no such option. The initial advantage is unavoidable, but the enhanced advantage conferred by choosing the dog to suit the spot IS avoidable, simply by drawing the dog-and-handler rather than just drawing the handler."

 

 

Yes, this is the issue for me. It's easy to understand and easy to fix. It's waaay more important IMHO to have the dogs' names on the running order than to pick nits about whether or not 2 or three pools were formed when drawing the names out of the hat. The HA's method of drawing is a good one, but it's deviated from in small ways for every trial I've ever been to. Lots of these reasons have already been brought up... cycling set-out people, last minute entry, you name it, things happen. BUT to purposely leave dogs' names off the Open running order in order to enable handlers to go to their trucks and pick which dog runs when should not be allowed to happen. It's blatantly unfair to the handler with one dog.

 

So if the issues we're discussing were going to be split up for efficiency's sake I would say that in the spirit of fairness that the intent of 15A should be made clear in that dog's names should appear with the handlers' names on the running orders of all sanctioned trials. It's impossible to actually police the draw itself. Even at trials where I know the hosts are extremely well-intentioned you can occasionally see a mistake that has been made. Maybe someone got to run both their dogs before someone else ran their first one. Like I said, these things happen. Leaving the dogs' names off the running order is not a mistake, however, and it's meant to provide some with an advantage over others. I would hope the BOD can see this. Maybe they should read this thread for some background, I think the thread is starting to uncover the real issue now. And I believe most contributors can still see the unfairness being discussed.

 

Ray

[Eileen Stein]

Well, I'm not a strong "regulation" kind of gal ... so no I don't think HA should control everything (wish someone would tell that to our goverment :@).

 

No, but you'd probably agree that the HA should control some things. The tough part is deciding which ones.

 

BUT the ONLY reason 2 dog handlers have an advantage is because some handlers CHOOSE not to run 2 dogs. I've been down to 1 dog and figured out quickly that it was better to run 2 :@)

 

At the risk of going off on a little tangent here, what do folks think is the reason that trial hosts choose not to draw dog-and-handler, when they don't? Robin said she likes to give the multi-dog handlers a chance to strategize. Are there other reasons/pluses?

 

Or is it just a mindset that you don't need to worry about disadvantaging the one-dog handler because if those handlers had any smarts they'd get a second dog?

[Shoofly]

There are very few one dog handlers running around here, way less than two dog handlers (10%?). By virtue of assigning dog names and removing strategy, you give some two dog handlers an advantage over others based on luck in the drawing. Why enter luck into it for 90% of the handlers?

[Debbie Meier]

At the risk of going off on a little tangent here, what do folks think is the reason that trial hosts choose not to draw dog-and-handler, when they don't? Robin said she likes to give the multi-dog handlers a chance to strategize. Are there other reasons/pluses?

 

Or is it just a mindset that you don't need to worry about disadvantaging the one-dog handler because if those handlers had any smarts they'd get a second dog?

 

 

This was my thought behind it when I first saw it:

 

The entry was sent in in advance without dogs being declared so that the working slot would be held. The intent was to declare the dogs at a future time, probably right up to arrival, some may do it due to not knowing which dogs they will take, others will do it so that if only one of their dogs makes it into the draw they can then designate their best dog.

 

When the trial host drew the run order they just drew based on actual entries which included "so and so's dog1" and "so and so's dog 2". This was published that way not to give the multi-dog someone an advantage but rather so that everyone could see in advance when their run was going to be. The plan would be to fill in the dog names the morning of the trial, not really putting thought into anyone considering it a foul.

 

The remedy would be for the host to contact all the handlers to find out which dogs by name they were entering before the draw, more work then needed when you have a lot of handlers failing to provide dog names.

 

As far as strategizing, personally I think that was just a result of the practice of leaving slots unnamed until the morning of the trial. The hosts let the handlers elect which dog they wanted to run when and the handlers ran with it and some use it to their advantage. Call it a legal loophole.

 

Deb