Guest herbertholmes Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 There is an item before the board to be discussed that proposes to change the qualifying from the current top 45 scores over the first go round to the top 15 scores from each day of the first go round. This is not a motion, but just discussion, so no official action is before the board on this. Feed back is appreciated. Thanks, Herbert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Wall Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Hub, I think this is a good change. Many times the weather or who knows what else makes the sheep very different from day to day. I remember at the 2000 Finals in OK, there were only a few who qualified for the semifinals on the second day due to the windy conditions making the sheep harder to work. On the last day, the weather was better and sheep got easier and 25 of the 50 taken qualified on that day. There will always be variation over the competition, even within the same day, but I think accepting 15 per day will help even things out more. I support it. Thanks for allowing our input. Denise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juliepoudrier Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Herbert, I have a more basic question. How is the number of dogs run in the semifinals determined? Looking back over the finals posted on the USBCHA website, it seems that 40 is the most common number to go to the semifinals. Following on that question is the question of how the number running in the finals is determined. For example, last year 17 dogs were run, but in years before that it seems 20 was the number run back. Are the differences due strictly to a time factor? At any rate, I agree with Denise. I would support a change that allowed 15 dogs per day as opposed to the top 40 or 45 overall. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valhalla Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Julie, from what I have heard, it was strictly a time factor that caused them to cut down on the numbers taken in the semi's and finals. Hub, please correct me if I am wrong. I also agree with trying this new format for the semi's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoofly Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 I think maybe it should be a percentage instead of a solid number - don't different numbers of dogs run on each day many times? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer Glen Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 I am all for the change! Jenny Glen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amelia Smith Posted February 14, 2006 Report Share Posted February 14, 2006 Good idea and maybe a percentage is better than a set number in case weather or whatever changes the number or dogs run. is anyone besides me curious about the judging nominations for this year's finals? who are they and when does the board vote? also should the board be able to nominate judges when they are the ones who vote them in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCS Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 If there are 50 dogs per day running and 15 dogs per day qualify for the semi-finalss to make up the 45, isn't each handler/dog team actually competing against the 50 dogs that they're drawn to run against on that particular day instead of the total 150 dogs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juliepoudrier Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 Marianna has a good point. I knew it couldn't be as simple as it seemed.... J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Smart Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 As the director who put this suggestion before the USBCHA Board I'd like to explain why it might be a good idea. Each year we face the problem of judging assignments including getting two judges to work the qualifying round for three days. This means a long and difficult job for them as they try to be consistent over such a long time. By having three separate trials we could rotate the judges. In the past we have had a judge become ill and have to miss a day. If that happened during the Qualifying round we would have a problem. Changes in the weather are more likely over three days than on each individual day so we would reduce the risk that is inherent in trialling of havung scores vary drastically because of the wind, rain, thunder, tornados,etc. In the event of a major event affecting the course - torrential rain, a grass fire, whatever - the course could be adjusted to get around the problem. Right now if a big problem occurs the Trial Committee can only shrug their shoulders and say "that's trialling". To make each day more even I have suggested that the draw be seeded by assigning each dog to day 1,2 or 3 based on their points totals. Each day would be drawn following our usual procedure. Bruce Smart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NancyO Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 Bruce, you wrote To make each day more even I have suggested that the draw be seeded by assigning each dog to day 1,2 or 3 based on their points totals.Could you explain this, I'm not sure I understand it. Nancy O Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Smart Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 Nancy, we saw at Tullamore that out of the six qualifying trials (40 dogs each with 7 moving on to the semi-final) that one or two trials had a lot of the best teams. We can try to avoid this by assigning the highest USBCHA points dog to day 1,2 or 3 and then putting the next dog into the next day and continuing in descending order. My own feeling is that it is really only necessary to do this for the top 30-40 dogs but that there would be little harm in doing it for the whole 150. Of course the USBCHA points are not a perfect ranking of the dogs, so much depends on which trials they go to, but it is the best we have. Once the dogs for each day are established then a normal draw would be done to get the running order. Bruce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOOSEDOGS Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 It sounds like you guys REALLY need to have a regional in place. Joan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCS Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 Bruce, Isn't assigning a dog to a day based on their USBCHA ranking defeating the point of a random draw? I would have to object that the top 30-40 dogs be assigned, then the rest of the field be drawn randomly. While weather & sheep can change over a 3 day trial, isn't that dog trialing? In fact, weather & sheep can change on a given day through different parts of the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer Glen Posted February 19, 2006 Report Share Posted February 19, 2006 I love the idea of 15 a day but putting the running order based on your USBCHA points is not a good idea. It means that dog number 50 has to run against the top 49 people in the trial. They don't even get a chance to make it to the semi's, but if they had done worse through the year and had been dog number 101 then they would be the best of the worst that day and they would get into the semis. (in theory anyway - we all know the reality of a dog trial) I think the daily random draw is fine and then pull the top 15 from each day. I thought the point was just to make the daily weather more fair. Jenny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juliepoudrier Posted February 19, 2006 Report Share Posted February 19, 2006 Jennifer, The way Bruce described it, dog #50 wouldn't be running against 49 "better" dogs. The top 50 (pointswise) dogs would be divided between the three days (i.e., 1/3 of the top 50 would run each day), with the remainder for each day being randomly drawn from the remaining hundred dogs. So dog #51 might run against 17 of the top dogs (pointswise) in the country on the day it runs, but the remainder of the dogs it runs against that day would be dogs that were lower in the rank order. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearse Posted February 19, 2006 Report Share Posted February 19, 2006 Interesting analysis by statisticians extraordinaire Glen Firchow and Herbert Holmes over at Working Stockdog Forum. Year Day1 Day2 Day3 2005 16 16 13 2004 17 19 9 2003 13 18 10 2002 12 14 14 2001 15 15 15 given that the seeding is random, there is a certain probability that you will get more talented dogs on one or more days by chance. But, unless the weather is extreme on one of the three days, it doesn't seem to make much difference which method you use. You will end up with roughly the same number from each day it would seem. As for the seeding, I think what Bruce was proposing was to seed the days based on points and the running order per day randomly (ie: top points dog runs day one, 2nd highest day 2, third highest day three, fourth highest day 1 .... 148th day 1, 149th day 2, 150th day 3) the idea being that you evenly distribute the best dogs over the three days. Glen also did an analysis of running time in Round 1 of the 2005 finals. It shows that there might be more of an effect from time of day than which day you run on, with early morning or late afternoon running times slightly bettering your chances but I think the sample size is too small to draw any firm conclusions from those numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 I think the proposed method could be a bit more fair if there were major weather changes during the course of the three days of qualifying, but the chief point in favor of it IMO is the issue of one of the judges possibly becoming ill. I know of a number of cases where a judge (this is particularly true of overseas judges, given travel, unfamiliar diet, etc.) has been feeling pretty rocky, and has continued to judge through it only by force of will. It seems to me inevitable that someday a judge is going to be too sick to continue, and in a three-day qualifying event that would be a serious problem. Better to try to minimize the risks in advance. Under the new proposal, the consequences of substituting a different judge for one day would have much less impact on the outcome. I'm sure there must be other sports where not everyone competes directly against everyone else in the qualifying rounds. I think the change deserves serious consideration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoofly Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 I think another good thing about this new method would be that it might make it possible to shorten the length of the Finals at some point in the future. If qualifiers for the final rounds are coming from pools, perhaps at some point in the future a Finals could be held where 2 or even 3 fields are being used, with different judges on each, like at the World Trial. I know that might be a logistical nightmare and there aren't many places to do it, but it does make it a possibility down the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juliepoudrier Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 Originally posted by Shoofly:I think another good thing about this new method would be that it might make it possible to shorten the length of the Finals at some point in the future. If qualifiers for the final rounds are coming from pools, perhaps at some point in the future a Finals could be held where 2 or even 3 fields are being used, with different judges on each, like at the World Trial. I know that might be a logistical nightmare and there aren't many places to do it, but it does make it a possibility down the road. ...Or you take it a step further and have those three different fields in three different parts of the country and voila! you end up with something akin to regionals.... J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.