Family members being judged by family members

[RoseAmy]

Okay so what is everyone's take on someone running a dog when their family member is the judge? I've seen this a few times at trials I've been at.

 

 

In the horse world this would be a big no-no.

 

 

Just wondering what everyone take on this is.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Fellow Sheepdoggers,

 

I know spouses who won't run under their spouses because they get hit a little harder than the rest. I don't know, and have never heard, of a judge giving a "spousal advantage".

 

Sheepdog culture has very, very few rules. As a trial host, provided I apply for sanction early so anybody who wishes to enter can do so, don't affiliate my trial with a conformation event and provide results and sanctioning fee post trial I can: choose Mitt Romney as judge. Hold the trial in the Walmart parking lot. Set up nine sets of drive panels. Make the handler's post a tethered longhorn. For full points, the shed is complete when the handler rings the bells around the sheep's neck while whistling yankee doodle on the shepherd's whistle.

 

In fact, I needn't announce these innovations on the entry form.

 

But . . . In the presence of my peers and betters I would have dishonored my sport, the dogs to which I owe so much and my handler-guests. As would any judge who gave his/her wife/husband more points than they deserved.

 

Not to worry.

 

Donald McCaig

[Debbie Meier]

Well, tell ya what, standing on the sidelines and judging our own dogs, seems that we each always take more points off on our own dogs then the judge does. So I would venture to say that in the majority of the cases, especially at the more difficult trials that a spouse/family member may actually have a tougher row to hoe with a judge having a higher expectation set on work of the family members dogs. Now, this would not be the case if the judge lacked integrity, but I doubt you will see that judge being asked to judge very often once it gets around that they favor friends, family and/or students over others.

 

So no, it doesn't bother me in general, but we would not reuse a judge that we felt was playing favorites.

[Liz P]

Conflict of interest. I've seen it done and had no problem when it was a NC run.

 

Does this happen often enough for people to notice a trend?

Edited November 12, 2012 by Liz P

[frisbeegirl]

Try having your Horse trainer for jumping be one of the judges.

 

Always the lowest of all the judges scores.

[Debbie Meier]

Within the USBCHA type of trials there really isn't enough to gain is there? I could see more issues when the trial placing results in the ability to earn titles and other achievements that are valued by some groups. But heck, we had a rather large cattledog trial last weekend, doubt many other then those that won can even tell you who the winners were each day.

[rufftie]

i am so glad i don't have to send my dog from the tethered longhorn!

[bcnewe2]

I've been judged by my mentor on several occasions and at several different trials. Boy, is she ever hard on her students and I wouldn't have it any other way!

I have never seen anyone accuse someone of poor sportsmanship for something like that, nor have I ever seen someone take advantage of the same, but that is only personal observation on my part.

 

Now I have seen poor sportsmanship but no one has to say anything. Everyone knows it when they see it.

Shame for poor judging, or doing something not quite above board goes a long way in this small sheepdog world! At least on a local level.

Everyone has their own list or should, people that they won't run under or people that they consider are poor sports.

[DeltaBluez Tess]

There might be some bias on judge/handlers team but I haven't seen any. I do know when they do run, a lot of people watch to see if there is any "favoring" but if anything, it might be harder. I know when I judge, I want to be harder on my students but keep all judging equal. I keep what they did wrong for our lessons. Judging should be fair, no matter who you are.

[RoseAmy]

Interesting thoughts.

 

I never gave it much thought until I overheard two handlers "discussing" it. Personally I don't have a problem with it..But these two handlers seemed to be not very happy about it.

 

Since I tend to be rather laid back about stuff I wondered if most felt like those two or if laid back with it like me.

[Smalahundur]

As I understand (and that "knowledge" mainly comes from this board so take the following with the proverbial grain of salt) the stakes can be pretty high in US trialling. I can imagine that in such an environment you´d want to avoid all possible suspicion of bias. Whether there are specific rules about it or not.

[Sue R]

I think that if someone is trustworthy enough to begin with that you would ask that person to judge, they should be trustworthy enough to be fair in judging friends, students, and relatives.

 

I think the only person/people I've seen questioning this (spouse judging spouse) has/have been folks who either don't do all that well and are looking to cast aspersions on others who might do much better than they do, or who just like to stir the pot.

 

JMO.

[emilyfalk]

I overheard this discussion recently at a trial, too, where I learned about this rule in the USBCHA Cattle (not Sheep) Rulebook:

 

http://usbcha.com/assoc/rules_cattle.html#SECTION 7:

 

"Section 7 CONTESTANTS:

 

P. No handler may compete in an event (Open or Nursery) at the National Cattledog Finals if that event is being judged by a close relative (parent, spouse or sibling)."

 

Has this ever come up at a Cattledog Finals?

[Debbie Meier]

Hmm, no clue when the rule was imposed, didn't even know it existed, but we have only been involved in the program for a few years. Reviewing the minutes over the years I don't see where it was changed so suspect that it was written right from the beginning of the cattledog program, I beleive the first committee members were Red Oliver, Merle Newton, Gary Westbrook, Wayne Butler, Dwain Thompson and Robin Nuffer.

[Sue R]

One could wonder about cattledog finals versus sheepdog finals. I know at sheepdog finals, there are multiple judges so the influence of any one individual judge would be moderated by the influence of three other judges (in the final round, only two judges in the qualifying rounds), at least in recent years, the breakdown of all scores by all judges is visible on the USBCHA website. Cattledog finals only had two judges for the final round. I wonder if that might have anything to do with this rule that Emily quotes?

[Debbie Meier]

Can only speculate at this point, there may have even beeen a committee prior to that first rule committee that is listed in the minutes.

[juliepoudrier]

Funny that the cattle rules would be different, especially given the points-time aspect of cattle trials. If only the outrun or outrun/lift is being judged, there couldn't possibly be much room for favoritism to show up, could there?

 

I haven't trialed much lately, but IME trial hosts don't always do well at their own trials, people will have something to say about the judging if you (or someone they don't like) have done better than them, if they don't like the judge for any reason, if they scored themselves higher than the judge did, etc. In other words, if there's a reason for complaining--or no real reason at all--someone will avail themselves.

 

I remember on trial where the judge was deemed to be too lenient on the first day, by a number of handlers. That judge was much harder the second day, and there were plenty of comments about that too. Then handler A asked handler B what handler B's score was. It was higher than handler A's. The next words out of handler A's mouth? "Well, she's being pretty lenient." Mind you, this was on day two, and that very same handler A had just been discussing how much tougher the judging was that day. So the judge was deemed lenient ONLY when a handler that "shouldn't" have outscored another did so.

 

So I think some folks will find unfairness no matter what. I just try to ignore it. Some of the best scores I ever got were under a judge I don't much like on a personal level, FWIW.

 

That said, I also don't think any trainer should judge his/her students to any different standard than what is being used for every other competitor that way. Maybe it seems the judge is being harsh from the students' viewpoint, but I'd bet that they are getting the same treatment as everyone else. Because as Sue said, if you don't trust a judge to judge honestly and fairly, why would you hire them?

 

J.

[Debbie Meier]

Funny that the cattle rules would be different, especially given the points-time aspect of cattle trials. If only the outrun or outrun/lift is being judged, there couldn't possibly be much room for favoritism to show up, could there?

 

 

and your point is? Lots of different rules, different people with different views and perspectives were involved with writing them and amending them. Does anyone have the original Sheepdog rules that were written? Is it possible that that rule was originally a sheepdog rule that was dropped?

[Gloria Atwater]

For what it's worth, I would never think to worry about a spouse judging a spouse on a trial field. If anything, I'd think a spouse would be harder on their mate, simply because they know their partner's every move and habit, and they would keenly and with an excruciatingly exact eye recognize every little mistake their partner made out there.

 

Just my tuppence. I would die a thousand deaths if I had to trial under my hubby, much as I love him!

 

~ Gloria

[juliepoudrier]

and your point is? Lots of different rules, different people with different views and perspectives were involved with writing them and amending them. Does anyone have the original Sheepdog rules that were written? Is it possible that that rule was originally a sheepdog rule that was dropped?

My POINT is that if the trial is largely points and time and NOT judged then a rule regarding the *judging* of spouses, etc., seems a bit superfluous. I'm sorry you seem to have a problem with that viewpoint. But if you'd look around the chip on your shoulder, you'd see that it wasn't meant as a slam, but simply an observation that if the judging is points and time there's not much room for favoritism (or poor judgment) for anyone. Isn't that one of the big arguments in favor of points/time trials? Sheesh.

 

J.

[Debbie Meier]

Funny that someone would not expect a reader to not read sarcasm in a post that is opened with the Adjective "Funny". Silly me.

[bcnewe2]

I think in my particular case I feel my mentor judged me the same but since she knew me and my dog it was natural for her to see more going on. OR..... I just felt like that.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Sheepdoggers,

 

At any given open sheepdog trial, 1/3 to 2/3rds of those judged judge trials themselves. They will know - for instance - that some judges deduct 2 points for a STOP REDIRECT (if taken by the dog) others deduct 2 points for a flying REDIRECT w/o STOP (taken by the dog).

 

Anyone who has run in enough trials to judge one knows that the dog they'd most like to buy may not win on the day they judge, that the dog may have DQ'd or RET'd and that the difference between 1st and 2nd - or 13th and 14th for that matter -is often a single point.

 

The judge's hardest job is consistency and making very small discriminations in an environment where those you're judging know as well as you do what the range of point loss for a particular fault should be.

 

Good judges (almost all North American judges) focus as intently on every run as you - the handler - do on your run.

 

Certain biases are, I think, inevitable. Hypothetical: if, as judge, you deduct 2 for STOP/REDIRECT but only 1 for flying REDIRECT and last year's National Champion gives a two part uninterrupted whistle which MAY BE a STOP/REDIRECT subtly disguised as a flying REDIRECT, most judges would give last year's National Champion the benefit of the doubt (1 point) while, perhaps, hitting the unknown handler 2 points. Which may, in turn, decide the final ranking of the two handlers.

 

In my experience, judges work very, very hard to get the rankings right. Sometimes they make mistakes, sometimes they are briefly distracted, sometimes they cannot see a grip the spectators can, sometimes they can see work the spectators or handler cannot.

 

And when two dogs are a point apart for the blue ribbon, the btter dog is, indeed, a matter of opinion.

 

Their honest opinion is why judges get the Big Bucks.

 

Donald McCaig

[rudy s]

i think on the cattel dog without saying names a one spouse was judging another at one of the first cattel finals when they wone the nuersery the ruel was made

[juliepoudrier]

The AKC has all sorts of rules about who can be judged by whom, based on whether a handler has received instruction, or the dog was trained by, the person doing the judging, and how recently, among other things. A good enough reason NOT to have such rules in USBCHA trials.

 

A judge who shows obvious bias might get away with it once, but soon enough they won't be hired to judge. Problem solved.

 

Debbie,

The use of "funny" was not to denote sarcasm; it was to point out the oddity of restricting who can judge in trials where judging is a very small part of the final score and so doesn't have much influence on the overall placings. Maybe the rule was put in back when the USBCHA thought cattle trials should be completely judged, in which case, it makes more sense, although I disagree with it. My thought about restricting who can judge is that it just serves to limit access to judges. A bad judge might affect one trial (this effect is offset by using multiple judges at the really important trials, like the finals), but isn't likely to continue to affect trials once people recognize the obvious bias and quit hiring that judge.

 

IME, for every handler who dislikes a judge's judging, for whatever reason, there is at least one handler who likes that same judge. Thus bias seems to be largely a matter of perspective, probably also tied to how well a particular hander does under a particular judge. IMO.

 

J.