Revised USBCHA Cattledog Finals Guidelines

[amc]

Thanks to Dan Gill for his motion to strike the phrase from the proposed

judging guidelines which would have forbidden the judge from taking

points off a crossover on the outrun if it was done to 'save the

cattle', and thanks to the committee for passing the motion.

 

No action was taken on the phrase which would allow a dog to hit the

cattle from the wrong side on the lift and still receive full points.

How does the judge then separate the dog that lifts the cattle correctly?

 

The guidelines will be presented to the USBCHA Directors at their next

meeting, which is supposed to be in early February. If you think the

guidelines are still in need of a lot of work, please let your Directors

know without delay.

[Bill Fosher]

It seems that cattledog trials aren't judged so much as they are refereed or umpired. Judging is just that: judging. If you take judgment away from judges, you're left with scribes.

 

If there are rules that prohibit or require points deductions for certain situations, you can expect one of three. things.

 

1.) Good judges won't accept invitations to judge cattledog trials because their hands are tied by arcane rules that prohibit them from calling it as they see it. The points and time people win because they can claim that good judges aren't available.

 

2.) A good judge will ignore the rules, making a mockery of the rules but judging the trial the way it should be judged.

 

In this case, anyone who had a dog cross over on the outrun will object saying that it was done to save the cattle. (In fact, I could make a case that every crossover I have ever seen was to save the stock -- usually because of a mistake the dog made that required the crossover ... but that's another question entirely.) Whatever other infractions the judge makes will be duly noted, bitched about, and the judge will not come back even if asked, which is unlikely. The points and time people end up winning, because they can claim that judges aren't available, and that they are "arbitrary."

 

3.) A judge will follow the rules, placing a dog that crosses over in the ribbons or even as the winner, making a mockery of the trial but keeping the rulemakers happy.

 

It's a bad deal all the way around.

 

The only guideline for judging dog trials ought to be: hire a good judge and let him or her do his job.

[Eileen Stein]

Guidelines are not the same as rules. Guidelines do not (or should not) "prohibit or require points deductions for certain situations." Guidelines should provide guidance to judges and competitors as to the relative gravity of different faults.

 

Note: Please do not construe this post as an endorsement of the proposed cattledog guidelines, which I consider to be seriously flawed, and which I hope will not be adopted.

[Bill Fosher]

Guidelines have the same force as rules if the competitors of the sports expect them to be followed and complain about judging that doesn't follow them to the T.

 

We've seen it already in sheepdog trials. The same people who always whine about judging still whine about judging, but they hold up the "guidelines" as supporting evidence.

 

Fortunately, the whiners are a fairly small minority and most competitors know good judging from bad. But I wonder if that will still be the case five or ten years from now when the novices moving up through the ranks are expecting that the guidelines will be more or less cast in stone when they start running in open.

 

Let the judge judge the runs. Let the whiners whine -- they will anyway.

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

Not really, because all they can do is complain, which, as you rightly say, they do already. They can't "enforce" them.

 

>

 

I literally have not heard this even once. I've heard people whine about judging, both before and after the sheepdog guidelines were adopted, but I've never heard anyone refer to the guidelines as support for their whining. Never not once. And there are certainly judges judging sheepdog trials now who do not follow the guidelines (flexible though they are) in various respects.

 

So far, I just have not noticed the sheepdog guidelines having any of the bad effects some people predicted they would have. Perhaps others have seen bad effects?

[cgt]

Bill, this doesn't sound so much like an indictment of "guidelines" as it is an indictment of people that have a bad attitude. People who (perhaps inadvertently) prefer to ruin a beautiful test of a dog by turning it into a golf tournament.

 

I can imagine that guidelines might be worth a read for someone who is just getting into judging. I know for sure that they are handy for someone who is trying to get a better idea of where their score comes from.

 

charlie

[StillTerry]

Like Eileen, I have never heard any of the whiners refer to the guidelines to substantiate their whining about the judging.

 

I've been to many trials and heard a lot of whining. Strangely and thankfully, the good handlers that have good runs are not the complainers. They don't debate which "shade of brown." Points come off for errors. They are more concerned with their or their dog's error than the score.

 

The whiners that I hear are generally people that go to very few trials or are in the novice classes. If you have a great dog, you know that there is always another day when you will come out on top.

 

I could be wrong but the guidelines haven't changed the judging that I have seen at the big trials at all.

 

I also believe the best judges are subjective. They have enough stock sense when the "unusual" happens to make the appropriate decision regarding the loss of points based on the circumstances at hand.

 

My reference here is solely sheep trials since I know nothing about the cattle judging.(Many would claim that I don't know much about sheep trialling either) Any opinions that I have regarding the cattle judging would come from the handler's that I respect the most. None of them seem to be happy with the proposed cattle guidelines.

 

Why have a judge if you do not allow him to judge. If you do not trust his integrity and ability, why did you hire him/her in the first place?

[StillTerry]

Because of our little verbiage games, I am becoming paranoid about spelling and grammar. (Yeah A., it's bout time)

 

Please delete the apostrophe from handler's.

 

I did spell check. Never realized that trialing is really spelled with 2 ll.....trialling.

[J. Williams]

The USBCHA Cattledog Judging Guidelines, revised following the last Board meeting and finalized February 25, have been posted for review prior to re-presentation to the Board. Please contact USBCHA Board of Directors and/or Cattledog/Rules Committee Members to provide relative input. Links provided below:

 

Revised Guidelines

 

Board of Directors

 

Cattledog/Rules Committee

[J. Williams]

The previous rules approved by the Board, as well as the Judging Guidelines, are now posted up on the USBCHA Website at:

 

http://www.usbcha.com/Rules_cattledog.htm

 

The Section listing itself has not yet been updated, but the Rules have. Clicking on Section 22 takes you to the start, then folks can scroll down from there.

 

As far as the Guidelines, they were passed by the Board, without change, as last revised.