# BH Pattern Question



## Holden Sawyer (Feb 22, 2011)

I tried to respond to an older thread but it had expired. I have recently switched to schutzhund and want to get the dog's BH. He has pretty good obedience and I think we are getting close to thinking about trialing. I will review the rules again and watch more videos, hopefully walk the pattern as club members prepare for an upcoming trial, etc. But there is one element that will help me decide when to shoot for and that is the sit out of motion and the down out of motion. I have not taught those yet. In my mind the handler commands the sit or down and the dog complies while the handler continues on without stopping or changing pace. But in the BH video on the other thread, it looked like the handler stopped at the time of giving the command. (my sound is disabled so i can't tell if he said "sit" before the dog sat, or if the dog automatically sat and was then given the command). Either way, if this stopping is OK, I think I can trial earlier. Thanks for any feedback, the rules of this sport are quite baffling to the newcomer! I am hooked though!


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Holden

The new BH rules that went into effect in January now allow (insist) that you "pause" for the motion exercises. The "pause" has been construed to be anything from a slight hesitation to a 3 second stop and assume the basic position. I taught a regular sit and down out of motion with the 2 dogs I just did BH's on. I just kind of did a stutter step. Figure out what your dog needs. You also only have to go 15 paces for any motion exercise where you return tot the dog (BH-IPO III)


----------



## Holden Sawyer (Feb 22, 2011)

Great! I think even a slight "stutter step" we could manage in the next few months, 1 - 3 seconds would be no problem. That is so helpful. Thank you.


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Holden
> 
> The new BH rules that went into effect in January now allow (insist) that you "pause" for the motion exercises. )


I have NEVER seen or heard anything about insisting. It is not mandatory.

Good Luck, Holden. I paused on my BH because I hadn't really taught the exercises yet.

Laura


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Laura

Here you go
http://www.dvgamerica.com/rules.html

"Sit Exercise - Handler stops after 10 to 15 steps and gives Sit Command while in Basic Position, then leaves 15 steps."

from the DVG America website


----------



## john simmons (Jan 20, 2010)

This is from the 2012 FCI rule book--

From the basic position the handler goes with his free-heeling dog in a straight direction. After a 
minimum of 10 to 15 paces the handler assumes basic position and commands the dog to “sit” and goes 
another 15 paces and turns facing the dog.

Same reads for "down in motion"...

I would say "assume" would be the key word here- being that we all know what happens when we assume.


----------



## Holden Sawyer (Feb 22, 2011)

Well, hopefully between now and then I learn what "basic position" means. But doesn't that mean the handler is stopped? I am glad to know even the experienced people are scratching their heads a little bit over this one.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

The rules give no other option; you must pause on the sit. Now what a judge or club allows you to do in a trial may be a different matter. But the rules are still the rules.


----------



## john simmons (Jan 20, 2010)

The rule book reads that you lose 5 points if your dog doesn't sit or down on command after you ASSUME the basic position. It doesn't say you lose points if you don't take up the basic position FIRST. So for me, I train BH as the actual out of motion exercise, as in the Sch/IPO I-III , that way I only have to train my dogs the motion exercises one way. That's because I'm not an "experienced" trainer

The basic position is the dog sitting on your left side- roughly his right shoulder to your hip line, depending on who you talk to...


----------



## Holden Sawyer (Feb 22, 2011)

I see now what the confusion is about. So john, you would basically train the dog to the true out of motion style, but if you were in your BH test, you would say "sit" or "down" almost simultaneously as your stop. Or, you could count out one or three seconds before you say "sit" or "down" since you are just standing there in basic position anyway. In my case I know I can do the 1 second thing because he's already been trained to some of this in different venues. I will just have to practice things like making sure to refesh that sit is an implied stay. The last trial I was at (different venue) there was a tiny rule change. First trial the judge wasn't really aware of it or was being kind. The second judge on the other hand -- it was a massacre! So yes it pays to read the rules but sometimes there is ambiguity in application. Thanks for the discussion!


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

wow. just shows how translations are different everywhere!

I went to a rules seminar...actually two of them and we were told it is NOT mandatory.
I watched four people get their BH last weekend and one out of four paused on the sit only, not the down.
The critiques were way too long to listen to so I zoned out but I don't remember hearing anything about a mandatory pause.

so much easier to do with a pause anyway, whether you teach it with one or not.

Laura


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

There is not a translation problem. The rules are quite clear. The problem is that there is one club here in the US that has decided to make it optional.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Translation or not. It is STUPID from a training perspective to teach your dog any kind of halt or pause for a BH and then have to reteach a true motion exercise for the IPO I. I lost the sit exercise when I did my GSD's BH last month when I hesitated too much. He started heeling again and needed two extra commands to finally sit. I did a straight out of motion sit with my DoberGirl with no problems. Lesson learned: Trial like you train and don't over thing a simple BH


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

eh - I don't really care one way or the other about what the rule says in regards to the stutter step. The BH is supposed to be a temperament test with basic OB. I teach the out of motion exercises without a stutter step, so I'm certainly not going to change what is for me, an easy method of teaching the exercises just to incorporate something that for me is useless (stutter step) and only seen in the BH. Makes no difference to me if I lose a point or two because of it. And if the day comes that I am doing such a crap job on the BH that my dog won't pass because of a couple points lost at the stutter step then I had no business stepping onto the field in the first place and deserve to fail.

Anyway, it's my understanding that in Europe the BH is very much the same as our temperment test, many dogs do it, not just dogs who will go on to compete in schH.. That's why the gunshots were taken out of it, and the same thing with adding the stutter step - it's to make it easier for those who have no affiliation with schH, have no intention of going on to title their dogs. So I really don't anticipate there being any big bruhaha just because someone doesn't do the stutter step.


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

You're entitled to your opinion, Thomas. There's many different ways to the top of the mountain. 

I personally don't think it's stupid to teach it with a pause. Or to teach it without a pause but then pause during the trial routine so it became something other than a sit in motion just to ensure the dog will do it because you (um, I) didn't teach it very well before the trial and you (me again) just wanted to pass and nobody really gives a crap about high-scoring BH anyway.

If you want to believe the UScA is evil, Chris, feel free. I zoned out at Masuda's rules seminar so I probably missed his opinion re the sit in motion pause being optional or mandatory.

Laura


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Laura Bollschweiler said:


> If you want to believe the UScA is evil, Chris, feel free. I zoned out at Masuda's rules seminar so I probably missed his opinion re the sit in motion pause being optional or mandatory.


Screw that BS Laura. I don't put anything in your mouth and don't appreciate you putting words in mine. I didn't say USCA is evil nor do I believe that. But I know for a fact that this exercise is mandatory per the IPO rules. I have asked two members of the FCI working dog commission about this specifically and both have told me that it is mandatory to pause.


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Christopher Smith said:


> But I know for a fact that this exercise is mandatory per the IPO rules. I have asked two members of the FCI working dog commission about this specifically and both have told me that it is mandatory to pause.


This is a true statement....However, every country/organization is allowed to make variances to the FCI rules. UScA is making the pause optional, per DOJ. But it is not a problem for an organization to make a variance and for you to say it creates a problem sounds a little like a snipe. 

I know with my training, I train for IPO3, the BH is pass/fail so if the judge wants to take 1/2 point becuase I didn't pause, then go ahead, it will not be the difference between passing and failing. But if I teach the pause then it "may" create some confusion in my dog when I start to not pause. (just what I do)


----------



## Sue DiCero (Sep 2, 2006)

Question. 

If every org is allowed to make variances on the translations on the rules, what happens when a club has a judge from a variant organization?

In the states, you can have a club have a USCA/SVR judge, SV, FCI judge. Are all the rules translated and done exactly the same?

FYI....We train for the FCI rules....

Thanks!


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Translation or not. It is STUPID from a training perspective to teach your dog any kind of halt or pause for a BH and then have to reteach a true motion exercise for the IPO I. I lost the sit exercise when I did my GSD's BH last month when I hesitated too much. He started heeling again and needed two extra commands to finally sit. I did a straight out of motion sit with my DoberGirl with no problems. Lesson learned: Trial like you train and don't over thing a simple BH


It's really not that hard, IMO, to cause such an uproar. My dog heels until I tell her not to heel anymore. How many times in training or trial do we end an exercise with another command? To me that's like saying it's stupid to teach a bark and hold during a blind search if we're just going to call out of the blind.

If my dog doesn't stay seated when I say "sit," regards of whether or not I pause next to her, I think I have an issue.

I originally taught my dog to sit with no pause. Then the rules changed, I didn't have to reteach the pause. I'd said "sit" so whether or not I paused or kept walking she knew to sit.

Now that our BH is done I have just kept walking with no pause. She hasn't unlearned the behavior. She does it exactly the same as she did before I added the pause.

It's just two separate, simple exercises.

Does that make sense? Just my two cents. But what do I know?


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Frank Phillips said:


> This is a true statement....However, every country/organization is allowed to make variances to the FCI rules. UScA is making the pause optional, per DOJ. But it is not a problem for an organization to make a variance and for you to say it creates a problem sounds a little like a snipe.


Maybe it sounds like a snipe because you are looking to hear one? But there is a problem. The problem, as Sue alludes to above, is that other judges come to judge USCA trials or USCA members go to other club's trials and don't understand that USCA has this variance, they think this is the FCI rule. So now we have people that go to a trial in another organization, or under a judge using the rules as written, and they get upset because they believe that the variance is "the rule". And the judge gets perturbed with the handler because they they seem to not understand the basic rules of the sport. So everyone leaves pissed off and confused. People being needlessly pissed and confused is a problem. Why not make it clear to the USCA membership that this is a variance within USCA? Maybe highlight it in the your club's rulebook and explain that it is a variance. 

If only the scorebook problems in this country had such an easy fix. :-o


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Actually there have always been USA variances. Just like there used to be differences between the rules for schH and IPO. The handler had to understand and train for the differences in trials and foreign judges were informed of the variances. I don't see this as any different, and I don't see this as any big deal. It's a total of ONE point people.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Christopher Smith said:


> Why not make it clear to the USCA membership that this is a variance within USCA? Maybe highlight it in the your club's rulebook and explain that it is a variance.


I would imagine they will be doing so in the new rule book, because if you look at the old rule book, the USA variances were clearly spelled out under the heading "USA VARIANCES FROM THE AZG RULES"


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Christopher Smith said:


> Why not make it clear to the USCA membership that this is a variance within USCA? Maybe highlight it in the your club's rulebook and explain that it is a variance.


First I'm not looking for a snipe...just sounded like on to me, my opinion and if one was not intended then I 'm sorry...


UScA does list very clearly in the front of the rule book all variances to FCI rules. Unfortuanately the new UScA rule book has not come out yet.

This is the only variance in the UScA rules having to do with trial procedures; The others are rules dealing with the size of our country, for example a handler can show 3 dogs instead of 2.

Well there is problems with judges coming in from other countries. There was a Belgian Judge at a trial in my region a couple of weeks ago that commented to a handler that there are 2 lefts in the heeling pattern. Maybe there is in Belgium (Ithink there is in canada too) but it is not in the FCI rules. 

Chris, we'll fix the scorebook issue, I have no doubt we can work together to come up with something that works for everyone


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Why does UScA need to make a variance? Why can't everyone just follow the rules as written by FCI?

I'm not trying to argue. I'm wondering what real reason there is.


----------



## Mario Fernandez (Jun 21, 2008)

Holden:

Don't worry about the sit. If you fail the BH it won't be for a 1/2 point because of the sit, it would be for everything went wrong. Have fun and good luck. I have seen more people fail the BH for the long down or never practicing checking into the judge with another dog next to them. 

Each country has their own twist/variance to the FCI rules. From trial procedures to how helper work is done. Adjust and do your due diligence


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Katie Finlay said:


> Why does UScA need to make a variance? Why can't everyone just follow the rules as written by FCI?
> 
> I'm not trying to argue. I'm wondering what real reason there is.


The reasoning is a lot of people train for the IPO titles where there is no pause allowed....So it just gave the judge the option of not taking 1/2 pt if someone doesn't pause... It gives the handler the option of pausing or not. Myself, I don't really care, the BH is pass fail and I won't pause no matter who the judge is. If he/she wants to take 1/2 pt for each exercise, go for it...it is still pass/fail, and that 1 total point won't be the difference between passing and failing....

A better question is why do some countries change the heeling pattern for all levels.....


----------



## Sue DiCero (Sep 2, 2006)

That is why we train by the FCI rules. 

Trialing under SV, USA and FCI judges here and SV and FCI judges in Europe - those few points can really cost you. And adjusting training for specific judges is not good.


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Sue DiCero said:


> That is why we train by the FCI rules.
> 
> Trialing under SV, USA and FCI judges here and SV and FCI judges in Europe - those few points can really cost you. And adjusting training for specific judges is not good.


What few points??? we are talking about 1/2 pt in 2 places ONLY in the BH which is pass / fail, so points don't really matter...Otherwise UScA is exactly the same as FCI rules....


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Katie,

The problem with Gwr wasn't him not sitting when told. The problem was he started to heel again after I restarted. I should have just done the standard sit out of motion that I'd taught and not tried to help him. I would have better off just taking the point lost for not pausing. Arya was still high BH and Gwr
second (even though we lost the sit exercise) and I got two
trophies and two certificates and everything.
When and where are you doing the IPO I? 




Katie Finlay said:


> It's really not that hard, IMO, to cause such an uproar. My dog heels until I tell her not to heel anymore. How many times in training or trial do we end an exercise with another command? To me that's like saying it's stupid to teach a bark and hold during a blind search if we're just going to call out of the blind.
> 
> If my dog doesn't stay seated when I say "sit," regards of whether or not I pause next to her, I think I have an issue.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jessica Kromer (Nov 12, 2009)

Thomas Barriano said:


> The problem was he started to heel again after I restarted. I should have just done the standard sit out of motion that I'd taught and not tried to help him.


When I first got into training dogs I was taught to teach the dog to HEEL when the first step from basic position is taken with the LEFT foot, and to STAY when the first step is taken with the RIGHT foot. So if I were to pause on the BH SOM I would step off with the RIGHT foot (silent stay command) from basic.

If I am doing a fluid sit out of motion with no pause, the I time my verbal SIT command to coincide with my LEFT foot hitting the ground so the next step is with the RIGHT (again, in conjunction with the "sit" command, it is a silent "stay") to reinforce the stay.

It is easy to teach since I am consistent (and now it is unconscious for me) from the very beginning of the heel training as a pup. And the extra clarity of the foot motion seems to help the pups "get" the idea of "stay behind even if I walk off when I tell you to sit" with this routine. I have always had rock solid motion exercises.

Anyway, just a small step that I take to keep things clear for the dogs that would make this all drama about confusing the dog a moot point. :-D


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

I don't see me needing to do another BH anytime soon so the pause out of motion wouldn't be a problem in the future. ;-)


----------



## Jessica Kromer (Nov 12, 2009)

Me either :-D

Not only do the two half point deductions mean nada to me at all, but stressing over the BH only means to me that one isn't prepared. BUT for someone who IS worried about it, teaching the right foot/left foot method makes it one LESS thing to worry about 8) Less for you, more for a new-to-the-sport handler. :-D


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

Sue DiCero said:


> Question.
> 
> If every org is allowed to make variances on the translations on the rules, what happens when a club has a judge from a variant organization?
> 
> ...


So is it the FCI that has the handler go past the group, do an AKC about turn, and then come back into the group? Or which country does that? Or is it the judge that made that up on the fly at last year's AWDF championship? 

Laura


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Laura Bollschweiler said:


> So is it the FCI that has the handler go past the group, do an AKC about turn, and then come back into the group? Or which country does that? Or is it the judge that made that up on the fly at last year's AWDF championship?
> 
> Laura


The way I understood the original proposal (not adopted by everyone else) was the handler passed the group on the left and then made a left turn and then a second left turn back into the group ( equaling two left turns). I don't think there was ever an AKC about turn?


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

There was according to the judge at the 2011 AWDF championships. Was that the way they did it in his country?

Laura


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

I don't have a clue about how they do it in his country. The original proposal that was supposed to take effect 1/1/11 talked about adding another left turn to the heeling pattern. That would only work with a J heeling pattern and going past the group.


----------



## Sue DiCero (Sep 2, 2006)

Frank,

Not for the BH, per se, but focus for the foundation for the IPO1-3 for all the FCI rules for all the IPO levels.

I think it will be a bit for the rules to settle, from holding/not holding the collars on the long bite and dog needs to be calm, distance from the jumps, steps in motion exercises, grips versus fighting the helper on the escape bite, etc.

At the SE Regionals (3/12), it was asked and told to the group that USCA would be transitioning the FCI rules in over the year (2012).


----------



## Sue DiCero (Sep 2, 2006)

This year, Jan 2012, is when the new rules went into effect.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Thomas Barriano said:


> When and where are you doing the IPO I?


No idea. She isn't ready yet. So whenever everything looks perfect enough to me


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> The way I understood the original proposal (not adopted by everyone else) was the handler passed the group on the left and then made a left turn and then a second left turn back into the group ( equaling two left turns). I don't think there was ever an AKC about turn?


I'd never seen nor heard about this pattern this judge did at this trial prior to me heeling on the field with my dog and the judge trying to gesture what he wanted me to do. I'm sure there is video online of obed during that trial so you can see this pattern. I don't remember who the judge was. Maybe his country had a variance. Maybe he wasn't an FCI judge. I'd completely forgotten about it until the recent talk about the FCI rules everyone should be following.

Laura


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Sue DiCero said:


> This year, Jan 2012, is when the new rules went into effect.


Yes but they were originally supposed to go into effect a year earlier and were delayed


----------



## Sue DiCero (Sep 2, 2006)

This year, Jan 2012, is when the new rules went into effect.

But, what the rules do state (and stated prior to Jan 2012) that the head judges at big events can make small changes and that is communicated to the competitors.

An example is at the 2012 WUSV with the pick up of the long down.

The change was made by the head judge that the blind for the long down was moved from the end of the field to the middle of the field.

The dog was placed on the long down on the end of the field, the competitor walked to the blind.

Prior to the on field competitor send out, the competitor would walk back to the dog on the down, make the dog sit and stay there during the other dog send out - you can not move - you stay there until the other dog mad the send out. 

Bottom line - he switched the dog and blind position.

1. It saved a few minutes per competitor.
2. The competitor could no longer work up the dog, after the long down, behind the blind, before walking to the start position.


----------



## Michael Howard (Nov 8, 2012)

Having just done my BH here in England. I was instructed by the judge that I was to assume a basic position before carrying out each exercise. The basic position being a halt without command, with dog in sit. Then with each exercise the command was given for either the sit or down and the handler to move away. I have always taught the moving ASSD, however as my dog knows to sit when I halt, it's not a big issue to recommand the position and move away. I also give the position command on left foot and carry on walking. Having done more competitions in Europe than England I was always told that the handler must do a left turn into the group. Hence you have two left turns. This I believe was started in Belgium but it has become so automatic with me that I now do it all the time.


----------



## Holden Sawyer (Feb 22, 2011)

Wow. And I thought that was going to be a "stupid newbie question" with one answer. :-\" I just wanted a ballpark idea since I don't even know how to train the moving sit / down (or how long that takes to train.) Heck, if I pass, I will by lying on the ground crying and probably get DQ'd for that anyway. :roll: I don't care about a point! Interesting discussion though!


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Holden Sawyer said:


> I don't care about a point! Interesting discussion though!


One point is what Frank says that he would take in his club. I know judges from other clubs that will make you do the exercise over, in the manner the rules prescribe, if you do not pause at the sit. The rational is that all exercises must be attempted because if they are not attempted they can't be judged.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Christopher

I've seen hundreds of BH's under dozens of judges. I've never seen or heard of a judge asking anyone to repeat any kind of motion exercise with or without a pause or with any other kind of handler help.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Christopher
> 
> I've seen hundreds of BH's under dozens of judges. I've never seen or heard of a judge asking anyone to repeat any kind of motion exercise with or without a pause or with any other kind of handler help.


What you you have seen means nothing. You don't even understand the concept that I am talking about Thomas and you have not seen hundreds of BH's done under the new (2012) rules.

I am not talking about repeating an exercise. When you do not *attempt *to do the exercise per the rules you are not attempting that exercise. And judges routinely ask handlers to do an exercise that they did not attempt. 

Thomas can a handler send his dog directly to the 6th blind in protection? 

On the retrieve over the meter, can a handler simply throw his dumbbell to the side of the jump and get partial points?


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Christopher Smith said:


> One point is what Frank says that he would take in his club. I know judges from other clubs that will make you do the exercise over, in the manner the rules prescribe, if you do not pause at the sit. The rational is that all exercises must be attempted because if they are not attempted they can't be judged.


 '

The exercise is attempted...It is no different then only taking 6 paces before command...It is just an incorrect buildup...JMHO


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Christopher Smith said:


> On the retrieve over the meter, can a handler simply throw his dumbbell to the side of the jump and get partial points?


 Yes...as long as the dog jumps over at least one way and retrieves...


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Frank Phillips said:


> '
> 
> The exercise is attempted...It is no different then only taking 6 paces before command...It is just an incorrect buildup...JMHO


However you want to justify it...


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Frank Phillips said:


> Yes...as long as the dog jumps over at least one way and retrieves...


Nonsense. You and I both know that you would tell that jackass to go pick that dumbbell up and throw it over the jump. 

And I'm sure that when the handler sends his dog straight to blind 6 that could be attributed to the moons gravitational pull on the handler's brain, thus causing uncontrolled spasms, which caused his arm to send the dog to the live blind.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Christopher,

We're not talking about concepts or new rules or retrieves over the wall or blind searches or anything else. You claimed to know judges that would require a handler to repeat a motion exercise if they didn't do the halt/pause and I say Bull Shit.





Christopher Smith said:


> What you you have seen means nothing. You don't even understand the concept that I am talking about Thomas and you have not seen hundreds of BH's done under the new (2012) rules.
> 
> I am not talking about repeating an exercise. When you do not *attempt *to do the exercise per the rules you are not attempting that exercise. And judges routinely ask handlers to do an exercise that they did not attempt.
> 
> ...


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Christopher Smith said:


> Nonsense. You and I both know that you would tell that jackass to go pick that dumbbell up and throw it over the jump.
> 
> And I'm sure that when the handler sends his dog straight to blind 6 that could be attributed to the moons gravitational pull on the handler's brain, thus causing uncontrolled spasms, which caused his arm to send the dog to the live blind.


C'mon Christopher now you are being disengenious. If the handler attempts to throw the DB and it lands next to the jump and the hand says "hup" the dog jumps over and comes back and picks up the DB and comes back it is -5 for not jumping back but you asked if he would get partial points and the answer was and still is Yes. I would NOT tell them to throw it again, if the handler asked for a rethrow I would absolutely grant one but I would not stop the handler and make them do it again....

and now sending the dog straight to blind 6 is NOT atempting the exercise... If the handler sets up toward Blind 5, send s the dog and points to blind 5 and the dog does not take even one step to blind 5 but goes straight to 6, then I would take the points for not running blind 5...but he made an attempt (it is just bad training  ) I think you are compareing apples and oranges.....

Back to the original, not pausing is doing the build up incorrectly by FCI rules. It should not result is a do over....and in a UScA event you have the option of doing it with or without the pause....


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Christopher,
> 
> We're not talking about concepts or new rules or retrieves over the wall or blind searches or anything else. You claimed to know judges that would require a handler to repeat a motion exercise if they didn't do the halt/pause and I say Bull Shit.


I've seen a judge ask for repeated about turns because the handler gave an extra command on the about.

Sure, not exactly the same exercise, but the same idea. The handler didn't do it as directed the first time, so the judge requested it be attempted according to the rules.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Katie Finlay said:


> I've seen a judge ask for repeated about turns because the handler gave an extra command on the about.
> 
> Sure, not exactly the same exercise, but the same idea. The handler didn't do it as directed the first time, so the judge requested it be attempted according to the rules.


Really? You have seen a judge halt OB and suddenly adlib commands to a handler in a schH trial? What judge, what trial what organization?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

A judge calling for a redo is unfair to the other competitors. The training field is the place for redos. 
If you or the dog make a mistake in a trial it's done and behind you for that day.
Learn from it!:wink:


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

He let the handler finish the routine and then asked the handler to demonstrate another about turn. It was my club's trial, SV/WDA Judge Mike West and an IPO
3 dog. 

I've seen UScA's Ernest Hintz allow commands throughout the BH routine, but maybe he didn't hear them.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Katie Finlay said:


> He let the handler finish the routine and then asked the handler to demonstrate another about turn. It was my club's trial, SV/WDA Judge Mike West and an IPO
> 3 dog.
> 
> I've seen UScA's Ernest Hintz allow commands throughout the BH routine, but maybe he didn't hear them.


Katie I'm still not clear about your first example, if OB had been completed, what was the judges explanation for requiring addtional about turns on a schH3 dog? The handler is permitted to use a command only at the beginning of the exercise, and at change of pace, therefore points should have been deducted accordingly for commands at the about, not give the handler a "do over" opportunity after completion of the exercise. 

Maybe this is a WDA rule variance?


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

No, I think he just wanted to see for himself that even when asked for a demonstration the handler still used a command to heel and also to turn on the about.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Katie,

A judge asking for a demonstration after obedience is a lot different then stopping in the middle of the exercise and asking for a do over. I still say that no judge in any organization is going to stop a person doing a simple BH and require them to repeat any motion exercise because they didn't pause. At any level you should be judged on your performance and not get any do overs in the middle.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

To me it's the same. It's in the middle of the routine, even if it's not the middle of the exercise.

To each their own.


----------



## Mario Fernandez (Jun 21, 2008)

"I've seen UScA's Ernest Hintz allow commands throughout the BH routine, but maybe he didn't hear them."

You can say the commands for each exercise, however if they are giving multiple commands most judges will let the handlers continue their routine and when the critique is given, the points come off.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Mario Fernandez said:


> "I've seen UScA's Ernest Hintz allow commands throughout the BH routine, but maybe he didn't hear them."
> 
> You can say the commands for each exercise, however if they are giving multiple commands most judges will let the handlers continue their routine and when the critique is given, the points come off.


That's what happened. But when the handler went through the group saying "fuss fuss fuss fuss..." with TWO dogs (two routines) I would have, as a judge, said something during. Maybe not the first time but when he did it again then I would have.

I know it's a temperament test, but if you're not ready, keep training. 

I feel like it's disrespectful to the sport and to those who really have put in the time and effort to pass someone who repeats commands almost the entire routine.


----------



## Donna DeYoung (Jan 29, 2010)

I was at a DVG club trial two weeks ago. I saw some people do the pause for sit in motion. Not sure if everyone did it. 

The judge did say she didn't think it was a good rule or training practice to add the pause - since everything after the BH does not have a pause...

I'm weaning off any extra commands for sit in motion/down and I haven't done BH yet. I'm thinking ahead. Don't care about the 1 pt in BH. But probably could go back and do it, since I'm teaching my dog sit means sit verbally, no matter what else is going on.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Katie Finlay said:


> That's what happened. But when the handler went through the group saying "fuss fuss fuss fuss..." with TWO dogs (two routines) I would have, as a judge, said something during. Maybe not the first time but when he did it again then I would have.
> 
> I know it's a temperament test, but if you're not ready, keep training.
> 
> I feel like it's disrespectful to the sport and to those who really have put in the time and effort to pass someone who repeats commands almost the entire routine.


Katie,

It's the judges job to judge the handler in front of him/her, not to micromanage or choreograph or give do overs. There are point deductions for extra commands. It would be totally inappropriate for any judge to tell a competitor not to use extra commands in the middle of a routine. Train your dog as well as you can and don't worry about what other people do.
Everyone gets the score they earn with most judges.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Katie,
> 
> It's the judges job to judge the handler in front of him/her, not to micromanage or choreograph or give do overs. There are point deductions for extra commands. It would be totally inappropriate for any judge to tell a competitor not to use extra commands in the middle of a routine. Train your dog as well as you can and don't worry about what other people do.
> Everyone gets the score they earn with most judges.


Guess it's just more fun to compete against other badass dogs and trainers than those who cheat their way through


----------



## Mario Fernandez (Jun 21, 2008)

I have a club member that is competitive. Always trying to outscore somebody. I guess that what motivates them. My perspective is I have a certain amount of points and I am not trying to lose them, don't care about anybody but me and my dog.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Katie Finlay said:


> Guess it's just more fun to compete against other badass dogs and trainers than those who cheat their way through


Having a BH doesn't make a dog a "bad ass" and putting a BH on one dog doesn't make anyone a trainer either Good Luck on your IPO I II & III (where the competition starts) ;-)


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Mario Fernandez said:


> I have a club member that is competitive. Always trying to outscore somebody. I guess that what motivates them. My perspective is I have a certain amount of points and I am not trying to lose them, don't care about anybody but me and my dog.


+1

I figure there's only room for one person at the top of the podium, but there's always room to improve your training.


----------



## Taryna Mitchell (May 13, 2010)

When I forgot the 2nd heeling pattern during my first BH, the judge kindly reminded me and let me start the exercise over. I'm not sure how many points it cost. Sadly we failed it due to other issues. We got it the next time around though. 

I'm doing a BH with my younger dog this weekend and am still not sure if I'll pause or not....there are other things that concern me more than that


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

I never said my dog and I were badasses, but we had a badass BH routine. 

I like being competitive and I like competing with/against people and dogs who are also competitive. It's a sport. Sports are competitive. I like being around other people who want to win also. It motivates me and really opens my mind to different dogs and training.

I'm not trying to "out score" anybody, I'm just trying to do the best my dog and I are capable of. Being around winners motivates me to train and try harder. I'm aiming for 300 points. Will I get that? Very doubtful, but I'm definitely capable of at least 270.

Just takes time. When her routines look as badass as her BH did (respectively) I'll trial her.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

There is only one winner per trial. A 270 score is something you can do no matter what anyone else does.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Thomas Barriano said:


> There is only one winner per trial. A 270 score is something you can do no matter what anyone else does.


My point is that I'm aiming for the best I can. I want to compete with people who make feel like I've earned the score. If I get a 270 and everyone else gets 240 it's not as gratifying. 

I'd rather lose with the 270 to really high scores than win out of a bunch of mediocre scores (that's assuming all of the teams are capable of getting higher scores).


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

My point is, the best you can do is not effected by what anyone else does unless you can't provide your own motivation and need to get it from others?


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

It's not that I can't get my own motivation. But I like having successful club members, etc. to compete with/against. We make each other better. And like I said, it's more rewarding to get a great score against other really good teams.

JMO.


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

I totally get what you're saying. I like to be around people much better than me. I like to compete on the same field with good dogs. I like watching good dogs 

My BH with my first dog was pretty good. My recent BH with my current dog wasn't. I knew he wasn't perfect but he would do everything and pass. He did. Both he and my first dog got the same thing written in their score books. Just pass. I hope I am a good sport and just because I chose to do a BH with a less-than-perfectly trained dog certainly does not mean I am disrespecting the sport. And I sure as hell don't cheat my way through. 

Laura


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

Katie Finlay said:


> I'd rather lose with the 270 to really high scores than win out of a bunch of mediocre scores (that's assuming all of the teams are capable of getting higher scores).


This shows your inexperience. I don't get this logic at all. What if the tracking is held at, oh, say a soy bean field in the middle of Iowa during a freakin wind storm? Your dog has never tracked this terrain before. There's corn stalk stubble sticking up like rows of knives pointing out of the ground. It's hard to walk because of the wind. Everyone fails but you. They all live there. You come from California and you win. 

If that were me, I'd cry because I was so proud of my dog. And I would proudly accept a well deserved trophy. 

That didn't happen to me. It's a made up story, except the location was the Iowa nationals, in which I didn't compete. 

Maybe I just don't understand your point. 

Laura


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Laura, I never stated you cheat nor do I think you do. You probably don't repeat your commands the entire obedience routine.

I made my general opinion with the assumption that all teams were capable of the high score, and stated so. That would include catastrophic tracking conditions. It's relative to the situation. Obviously I don't expect to be amongst high scores in those conditions, as I would at a local club trial. But I would hope I wasn't the only one that passed.

I'm not saying I wouldn't be happy, because I would very much be. I just like the competition, as I do in any other sport...


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

Repeating commands throughout the routine isn't cheating. It's a point loss. 

Laura


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I've heard a couple of high level competitors in Schutzhund make the comment that there is no cheating in Schutzhund. It's only creative training. ](*,)](*,)

I did AKC trialing for a number of yrs before I did Schutzhund. If the AKC competitors were as blatant with their "creative training" in the ring as I've seen in Schutzhund there would be a line a mile long waiting to complain to the judge.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> I've heard a couple of high level competitors in Schutzhund make the comment that there is no cheating in Schutzhund. It's only creative training. ](*,)](*,)
> 
> I did AKC trialing for a number of yrs before I did Schutzhund. If the AKC competitors were as blatant with their "creative training" in the ring as I've seen in Schutzhund there would be a line a mile long waiting to complain to the judge.


Unfortunately Bob there is a culture in schutzhund that somehow thinks it's OK. I don't understand it. It's really sad and pathetic. I could understand cheating if it cured cancer or something, but this is just a silly game.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

When the handlers are continuously repeating commands under their breath so the judge doesn't hear (even if he does sometimes), it's cheating.

And I agree Bob. There should be a long line of complaints.


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Katie Finlay said:


> When the handlers are continuously repeating commands under their breath so the judge doesn't hear (even if he does sometimes), it's cheating.
> 
> And I agree Bob. There should be a long line of complaints.


Under the rules it is NOT cheating. It is handler help and results in point loss.

this is not the AKC where one mistake and you DQed

Cheating is carrying motivational items, food, toys...Modifying the dogs collar...


things like that are Cheating.


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

For my BH, I repeated the platz command once because the dog started following me. Did I cheat? Or is it okay if I repeated a command once, but not continuously? I mean, I knew I needed him to at least stay there to get more points so I was willing to take the point loss with the second command. At what point in your mind does legal handler help become cheating? One extra command. Two? Three? Four? Five?

Have you ever taken a dog onto a field and thought, "oh, crap, something's wrong..she's completely freaked out never done this before. I better do what I can to make this the best I can." Hasn't happened to me in SchH but it has in agility. I doubt it happens as much in SchH but I've seen it. Maybe the handler who kept repeating commands didn't know they weren't supposed to. Maybe they have a Crappy TD who told them they were ready and they really weren't. So now those poor unprepared people are cheaters? Kinda harsh. I've seen lots of people give a fuss command on the about turn and they don't even know it. Their spotters in training should be pointing that out. Cheaters? 

If you heard the handler give commands, then the judge probably did too. 

Cheating to me is taping a ball under your armpit or sneaking on to the field and putting out a bumper for the go out. Or putting a tiny rubber band around your dog's paw to remind them to retrieve. 

Laura


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Frank Phillips said:


> Under the rules it is NOT cheating. It is handler help and results in point loss.
> 
> this is not the AKC where one mistake and you DQed
> 
> ...


Then I wish people would wait until their dogs don't need handler help before entering a trial. My views on it are the same. Handler help/cheating/whatever. I'd rather compete with people who really train and are driven to succeed. Not some guy who repeats his commands throughout the entire routine. I'd rather lose to a real winner than win over a real loser.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Laura Bollschweiler said:


> For my BH, I repeated the platz command once because the dog started following me. Did I cheat? Or is it okay if I repeated a command once, but not continuously? I mean, I knew I needed him to at least stay there to get more points so I was willing to take the point loss with the second command. At what point in your mind does legal handler help become cheating? One extra command. Two? Three? Four? Five?
> 
> Have you ever taken a dog onto a field and thought, "oh, crap, something's wrong..she's completely freaked out never done this before. I better do what I can to make this the best I can." Hasn't happened to me in SchH but it has in agility. I doubt it happens as much in SchH but I've seen it. Maybe the handler who kept repeating commands didn't know they weren't supposed to. Maybe they have a Crappy TD who told them they were ready and they really weren't. So now those poor unprepared people are cheaters? Kinda harsh. I've seen lots of people give a fuss command on the about turn and they don't even know it. Their spotters in training should be pointing that out. Cheaters?
> 
> ...


The people I'm talking about knew. And they weren't doing it because their dogs were freaked out, they were whispering fuss fuss fuss under their breath during the group so the judge couldn't hear. One guy started YELLING at his dog to down when he stood in the long down. 

Yes, there are different scenarios.
I'm talking about the people who know better and are doing it because the dog just isn't trained.


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

I thought of a good one. Is it cheating if you're competing at the regional level, and your SchH 3 dog won't give up the dumbbell. You give him FIVE commands to out, and the judge tells you something to the effect of, pinch him. So you comply with the judge's orders, and dog lets go and you end up with a 91 in obedience. Is that cheating?

Laura


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Katie Finlay said:


> Then I wish people would wait until their dogs don't need handler help before entering a trial. My views on it are the same. Handler help/cheating/whatever. I'd rather compete with people who really train and are driven to succeed. Not some guy who repeats his commands throughout the entire routine. I'd rather lose to a real winner than win over a real loser.


Are you even aware of what all constitutes handler help? Because I know many people in your club, and they (as I and most everyone else in the world) give handler help in one fashion or another. If a dog is either flat or overly amped, anything you do to correct the situation once you step on the field is handler help, from breath sounds, to walking faster/slower than normal, to changing your stride or the way you walk, to pumping your arms more than usual, to specific eye contact can all be construed as handler help. How about the send out? Do you have any cue for your dog that you are about to command the send out? Most of the people in your club have a cue for their dog, as do I, as does everyone I know. Guess what - that's handler help.


Be very careful criticizing others, just because they were awkward and too obvious in their handler help, doesn't make them any more guilty than you or me anyone else who perhaps is just more subtle. Schutzhund sport is about 300 points for you and your dog, worry about you and your dog, not about what everyone else is doing.
:wink:


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Taryna Mitchell said:


> When I forgot the 2nd heeling pattern during my first BH, the judge kindly reminded me and let me start the exercise over. I'm not sure how many points it cost. Sadly we failed it due to other issues. We got it the next time around though.
> 
> I'm doing a BH with my younger dog this weekend and am still not sure if I'll pause or not....there are other things that concern me more than that


There is no penalty or points lost for forgetting an exercise (it's in the rule book) and having the judge remind you. That's different then a judge stopping you in the middle and making you do it over.


----------



## john simmons (Jan 20, 2010)

is it cheating if you cue your dog to a certain exercise? ie: hands closed for sit in motion, hands closed with thumbs out for down in motion and hands open for stand in motion... i think tying a steak to your butt and covering it w/ baggy pants is cheating or having food in a pockect is cheating. Training your dog with cues is good, smart training and it's not cheating because the dog is still performing the routine without " luring "- whether it's voice, toy, food, etc...
is smiling while heeling or when you look at your dog in the trial cheating?There's a lot of scenarios that everyone can go through to prove their point. 
Cheating is cheating- and good judges, handlers and trainers can pick it out in a second but there is no substitute for solid training because the handler/ dog team will consistently perform at the best level they are capable of...
To the OP- as stated earlier, I still feel "Cheating" or not, I will train my dogs for the ? sch trials they may be in and that the Bh is a temperament test. The pause, I think, maybe was put in to help borderline teams pass to help keep the sport growing. Maybe there is/was a high wash out rate on Bhs? IDK. For whatever reason it is there, from a training stand point- Not good... 
just my 2 cents


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Katie Finlay said:


> Then I wish people would wait until their dogs don't need handler help before entering a trial. My views on it are the same. Handler help/cheating/whatever. I'd rather compete with people who really train and are driven to succeed. Not some guy who repeats his commands throughout the entire routine. I'd rather lose to a real winner than win over a real loser.



I wish that people would attend Church a few more times before they start preaching to the Congregation.
When you've trialed a few more times and actually earned a real title maybe you'll understand the difference between cheating and handling and points loss and cheating. Maybe you'll understand that no matter how long or well you train.
Sometimes dogs and their handlers just don't react like they do at training when they hit the trial field. Or maybe you'll be one of the perfectionist that hang out at trials and Clubs. The guy who wants to be "ready" so he has a 5-6 year old dog with a BH and he's always giving training advise to everyone on the field FROM THE SIDELINES


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

I remember a trial where a dog was on the last out of a SchH II protection routine. The judge is close to the dog and the handler is up field. The handler is about to give her last command before being DQ'd and the judge holds up her hand and says to the handler "tell your dog to O U T"
Of course the dog lets go 
Is that cheating on the judges part? Do you think anyone complained?


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Laura Bollschweiler said:


> I thought of a good one. Is it cheating if you're competing at the regional level, and your SchH 3 dog won't give up the dumbbell. You give him FIVE commands to out, and the judge tells you something to the effect of, pinch him. So you comply with the judge's orders, and dog lets go and you end up with a 91 in obedience. Is that cheating?
> 
> Laura


Yes. The judge cheated and everyone else went along with it.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

john simmons said:


> The pause, I think, maybe was put in to help borderline teams pass to help keep the sport growing.


HAHAHA! Ironically, I was just thinking the opposite. The pause must be really hard to teach if people are so resistant to it and clubs feel the necessity to make variances to avoid it. :lol:


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Susan, I don't train like the others in my club. I'm not saying it's better or worse, but I don't train like them. 

I understand what handler help is and what isn't. So does everyone else here. If you could sit back and maybe think that my statement was general and not start formulating situations where it wouldn't apply it would make more sense.

Obviously a change in my breathing pattern (which I don't do) is different than me repeating the word "fuss the entire BH routine. One is blatant, the other is not. I'm pretty sure that's freaking obvious to all of you. You guys aren't retarded. Stop thinking of situations on where it wouldn't apply and maybe look at a situation it does. Maybe then you might understand. You might not agree. But you might see where it makes sense. I don't think anyone wants to do either. That's fine with me.

I never claimed to know it all, or be experienced, and perhaps my mind will change in years to come. But you can bet your ass I'm not settling for a 246. If it takes me 5 years to get there, then it takes me 5 years to get there. I really don't care either way. I'd rather get my high scores and be successful with my four trials than do just okay and/or fail numerous times.

Maybe that's the problem. Maybe I wish more people put the time and effort I do into my training to make the trial more worthwhile to me.


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Christopher Smith said:


> HAHAHA! Ironically, I was just thinking the opposite. The pause must be really hard to teach if people are so resistant to it and clubs feel the necessity to make variances to avoid it. :lol:


Hahaha....You just can't help yourself can you....UScA Variance gave handlers the OPTION of doing it or not....No one was avoiding it....Why do you feel it so necessary to twist reality in order to throw a little jab at UScA at every chance...


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

IMO, A handler help is something that is inadvertent or something a judge might believe is inadvertent. A head nod on a position. A shoulder drop on a left turn. Things caused by nervousness, ignorance, brain farts etc. 

A cheat is the bullshit done on purpose. It's a person that does something to increase their chances of doing well. Why *whisper* fuss-fuss-fuss-fuss throughout the group? If it's not cheating, why not say it louder so the dog would respond to it better? 'Cause it's a cheat and they don't want the judge to hear them doing it! 

And I don't care if you want to call it handler help. Personal ethics trumps everything else. Good for Katie for drawing her ethical lines in the sand and standing behind them. This does not mean that you guys can't go out and do all the "handler help" that you want. But just don't believe that others are not forming different opinions about what you do.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Katie Finlay said:


> Susan, I don't train like the others in my club. I'm not saying it's better or worse, but I don't train like them.
> 
> I understand what handler help is and what isn't. So does everyone else here. If you could sit back and maybe think that my statement was general and not start formulating situations where it wouldn't apply it would make more sense.
> 
> ...


.



Katie Finlay said:


> Then I wish people would wait until their dogs don't need handler help before entering a trial. My views on it are the same. Handler help/cheating/whatever


.

My point is the same as the others who have said basically the same thing: handler help is handler help, whether it's obvious to you or it isn't, to differentiate between something subtle and not so subtle, to call one cheating and the other not, the fact remains, you're wrong, it's not cheating. 

With regards to a 246, I promise you, there are people who work just as hard as you do, in fact probably harder, and get a 246, just as you may very well earn a 246 one day, and when that day comes, when you actually earn a title, and find out what it takes, I bet you will be very happy, providing you and your dog did your best. 

I don't think you intend to come off as arrogantly as you are coming off, but I also think ignorance is bliss. I suggest you wait to pass judgement on who works hard, who doesn't, what score is acceptable, what isn't, what handler help is OK, what isn't, when you have actually been there done that.


----------



## john simmons (Jan 20, 2010)

Christopher Smith said:


> HAHAHA! Ironically, I was just thinking the opposite. The pause must be really hard to teach if people are so resistant to it and clubs feel the necessity to make variances to avoid it. :lol:


Of all the things we work on to put a title on a dog, this pause does seem to be a very difficult one to teach

I say we start a thread on whether we can still call the sport Schutzhund or IPO. Then of course there's the stick hits or pressure phase issue. And my biggest favorite- the "stop or I'll send my dog" controversy... :-o


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Frank Phillips said:


> Hahaha....You just can't help yourself can you....UScA Variance gave handlers the OPTION of doing it or not....No one was avoiding it....Why do you feel it so necessary to twist reality in order to throw a little jab at UScA at every chance...



They are avoiding it Frank! USCA gave the option to avoid the pause. That's not twisting reality. 

And you are hearing what you want to hear. This has nothing to do with USCA it's about this this rule? Do you fail to see the difference? 

The organization doing it does not matter one bit to me. Do you know of any other organization in the US that has variances on the rules? I will voice my opinion about any variances.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> I suggest you wait to pass judgement on who works hard, who doesn't, what score is acceptable, what isn't, what handler help is OK, what isn't, when you have actually been there done that.



OK then what? What happens if she takes her dog to the IPO3 and still holds the same opinion?


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Christopher Smith said:


> OK then what? What happens if she takes her dog to the IPO3 and still holds the same opinion?


I think she will then understand we don't trial in a vacuum, conditions are usually far less than perfect, some dogs (no matter how hard their handlers train) and some people may only be capable of a 246, sometimes that's as good as it gets, no matter how hard you work, in some circumstances, including maybe even her own (you never know), a 246 is something to be proud of, not scoffed at. 

You said "handler help is something that is inadvertent or something a judge might believe is inadvertent" so does that mean in your book it's OK as long as the handler isn't aware they are helping their dog? How's that different? Most people (at least in So Calif) have trialed when it's murderously hot outside (for example) and had to use a method to bring drives up on the field in OB, whether that's by walking in a more animated manner, to a breath sound, to pumping their arms, to eye contact, to smiling, it is handler help but it's not cheating it's good handling.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

susan tuck said:


> I think she will then understand we don't trial in a vacuum, conditions are usually far less than perfect, some dogs (no matter how hard their handlers train) and some people may only be capable of a 246, sometimes that's as good as it gets, no matter how hard you work, in some circumstances, including maybe even her own (you never know), a 246 is something to be proud of, not scoffed at.
> 
> You said "handler help is something that is inadvertent or something a judge might believe is inadvertent" so does that mean in your book it's OK as long as the handler isn't aware they are helping their dog? How's that different? Most people (at least in So Calif) have trialed when it's murderously hot outside (for example) and had to use a method to bring drives up on the field in OB, whether that's by walking in a more animated manner, to a breath sound, to pumping their arms, to eye contact, to smiling, it is handler help but it's not cheating it's good handling.


I actually try to avoid training on perfect conditions because I know it's never going to be that way in trial.

I'm arrogant and ignorant, whatever. Time will tell if my mind changes. 

Do you guys have this problem with successful people holding this opinion? Because it doesn't seem like it.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Also, Susan, you said 246 is great providing the dog and handler (or at least the handler, can't really control how hard a dog tries) are doing their best. I agree with this.

I'm specifically talking about the people who DON'T try their best. How many times do I need to say that?


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Christopher Smith said:


> They are avoiding it Frank! USCA gave the option to avoid the pause. That's not twisting reality.
> 
> And you are hearing what you want to hear. This has nothing to do with USCA it's about this this rule? Do you fail to see the difference?
> 
> The organization doing it does not matter one bit to me. Do you know of any other organization in the US that has variances on the rules? I will voice my opinion about any variances.


 I do see what this is about...But we are all able to see that you have an agenda to take a shot at UScA whenever you perceive the opportunity.

Many orgs have variances to the rules. GSSCC has Variances, UScA has variances, obviously by you being so upset by this I will assume AWMA strictly follows all FCI rules.

I'm done with this topic...have at it...


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Katie you said it yourself:

"I never claimed to know it all, or be experienced, and perhaps my mind will change in years to come. But you can bet your ass I'm not settling for a 246."

You might very well end up with a 246, and as long as both you and your dog did your best you will be proud of the score. You have no control over the conditions of the day and you have no control over how sharp the judges pencil is. Judges normally don't judge club trials like World events, but it does happen. 

You also said 
"Do you guys have this problem with successful people holding this opinion? Because it doesn't seem like it."

I don't know what led you to such a conclusion but I sure haven't seen any evidence of kowtowing to anyone's opinion on this thread, or any other.

So now I think, for me at least, this topic is done, some people hold one opinion, others hold a different opinion, beyond this I think we are all just starting to talk in circles and nobody is going to change anybodies mind.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> I think she will then understand we don't trial in a vacuum, conditions are usually far less than perfect, some dogs (no matter how hard their handlers train) and some people may only be capable of a 246, sometimes that's as good as it gets, no matter how hard you work, in some circumstances, including maybe even her own (you never know), a 246 is something to be proud of, not scoffed at.


You are assuming that she dosen't understand that. 



> You said "handler help is something that is inadvertent or something a judge might believe is inadvertent" so does that mean in your book it's OK as long as the handler isn't aware they are helping their dog? How's that different?
> 
> 
> > No it's not "OK". The difference being intent. IMO, if you intend to break the rules you are cheating and should be treated much harsher than a person that breaks the rules to better their outcome. It's like the difference between running over a guy in your car because you skidded on ice and running a guy over because he owes you money.
> ...


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Frank Phillips said:


> I do see what this is about...But we are all able to see that you have an agenda to take a shot at UScA whenever you perceive the opportunity.
> 
> Many orgs have variances to the rules. GSSCC has Variances, UScA has variances, obviously by you being so upset by this I will assume AWMA strictly follows all FCI rules.
> 
> I'm done with this topic...have at it...


Is that slam, bash or jab at the AWMA? :lol:

When it comes to trial rules, yes the AWMA follows all the rules. But in the US it's impossible to follow all of the FCI rules. And I'm not upset about USCAs variances. You can do whatever you want at your trials and I think that's a good thing that you do. You should always do what is good for your membership and the GSD. My only problem with this situation is that people were confused about the FCI rule vs USCA's variance. Confusion is not good for the sport.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Christopher Smith said:


> You are assuming that she dosen't understand that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Katie Finlay said:


> Christopher Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Susan, you have an IPO I on a dog. If we're talking experience, that's not really many more trials than I've ever entered. Thomas, the same goes for you. Neither of you have IPO III dogs. I have never judged you for lack of experience because you haven't gone to any nationals.
> ...


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Katie Finlay said:
> 
> 
> > Katie,
> ...


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

PS. I don't see your name here? http://germanshepherddog.com/members/Sch3ClubList.htm

Oh wait, I was only looking at one year.

I found one dog. Love keeping the tails on Dobes.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Anyway, Thomas, since I admitted my research mistake, you should go back and read the rest of the post. That was really the point of it, because whether you have an IPO III dog or not doesn't matter to me either way.


----------



## Doug Zaga (Mar 28, 2010)

It isn't hard to transition from the pause in the sit in motion to no pause. We got his BH on Nov.10th and the last two weeks while working on OB the pause step has been faded out.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Christopher Smith said:


> Go to the rules and see. What do the rules say about smiling or eye contact? Do the rules prescribe how you should walk during heeling? I don't have a problem with a person handling their dog however they want. But when it comes to things that rules specifically say you can't do and then you go on the field and do those things on purpose you are cheating. But I'll stick to the example Katie used about the fuss-fuss-fuss fuss in the group. I think that that is blatant cheating.* Do you think that that is a "help", handling or a cheat?*


The rules don't say you can't give extra commands either, the rules say that extra verbal commands or "body help" are to be faulted accordingly. If my dog is lagging horribly, and I know that by giving him an extra command, I may lose a point (if the judge hears me), but not near as many points as I would if I said nothing, then I'm going to give him an extra command and let the chips fall where they may. If my dog doesn't out the dumbell, I'm not going to sit there and fight him for it, I'm going to give him another command, and take the points for it (or not, if I'm somehow really lucky and the judge isn't paying attention). That is NOT cheating, anymore than any of the other things I have mentioned.


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

Christopher Smith said:


> Yes. The judge cheated and everyone else went along with it.


that was what I saw at the WDA regionals maybe three years or four years ago. I can tell you the name of the handler and dog. that was the weekend I decided WDA wasn't for me. 

Laura


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

susan tuck said:


> The rules don't say you can't say it, the rules say that it is a double command and you are to be faulted accordingly. If my dog is lagging horribly, and I know that by giving him an extra command I may lose a point (if the judge hears me), but not near as many points as I would if I said nothing, then I'm going to give him an extra command and let the chips fall where they may. If my dog doesn't out the dumbell, I'm not going to sit there and fight him for it, I'm going to give him another command, and take the points for it (or not, if I'm somehow really lucky and the judge isn't paying attention). That is NOT cheating, anymore than any of the other things I have mentioned.


Okay, but what about the things WE mentioned? Do you not feel that those situations could be considered cheating?

In your situation, if you entered your dog KNOWING he was going to lag, and whispered "fuss" to him every so often - attempting for the judge not to notice - would you consider that cheating?


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

Katie Finlay;362244 I train on tracking they wouldn't dream of having at a national competition.
I DO understand what goes on at trials. Just because I haven't gotten an IPO 1 yet or entered a national does not mean that I don't know anything about the sport. I'm out there every day with my dog. I watch trials. I train with people who go to nationals.
.[/QUOTE said:


> Ignorance is BLISS. You have NO IDEA how tracking can be at National events. NO IDEA. NONE.
> 
> How many trials have you watched?
> 
> ...


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Katie Finlay said:


> Okay, but what about the things WE mentioned? Do you not feel that those situations could be considered cheating?
> 
> In your situation, if you entered your dog KNOWING he was going to lag, and whispered "fuss" to him every so often - attempting for the judge not to notice - would you consider that cheating?


Seriously? No I would not consider that cheating, I would consider that person to be giving extra commands and it would be the responsibility of the judge to see it, and fault it accordingly, and if you saw it, then the judge probably did too, and if the judge didn't, that's the way it goes.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Katie Finlay said:


> [
> 
> What's the right answer, Thomas? How many dogs does anyone have to title to IPO III does it take to make my opinion valid?
> 
> ...


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Laura Bollschweiler said:


> Ignorance is BLISS. You have NO IDEA how tracking can be at National events. NO IDEA. NONE.
> 
> How many trials have you watched?
> 
> ...


You're right, I'm just going off photos and videos I've seen of nationals (I've been to ring nationals but not IPO) and have stories from multiple people who have been there and competed (and passed). But I have absolutely no idea. Even when I send photos of my tracking locations or track with the people who have been to nationals multiple times and they tell me what I'm tracking on will never be there. Of course they could be wrong, that's why I track there. You've also got a 24/7 surveillance camera on me, so you know what I've seen, where I've been, and who I train with and how I train.

I don't see how you can relate something like a handler tripping on accident to someone purposefully whispering around the judge and making cues when the judge isn't looking.

Susan, that is the way it is. I've seen the judge not notice.

It's just my opinion that it shouldn't be that way.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Thomas,

Name one person I accused of cheating.

Also, I did a shit ton of research to find your IPO III scores for your dogs. I'm not doubting their titles, but I never found the scores. I found multiple failed trials in multiple venues for those dogs as well though.

Why don't you do some research or ask Chris yourself?


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Laura Bollschweiler said:


> that was what I saw at the WDA regionals maybe three years or four years ago. I can tell you the name of the handler and dog. that was the weekend I decided WDA wasn't for me.
> 
> Laura


Ooookay...So? What's your point? If your point is cheating is everywhere; we are in agreement. 8)


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Katie Finlay said:


> Name one person I accused of cheating.
> 
> Also, I did a shit ton of research to find your IPO III scores for your dogs. I'm not doubting their titles, but I never found the scores. I found multiple failed trials in multiple venues for those dogs as well though.
> 
> Why don't you do some research or ask Chris yourself?


You're the perfectionist not me. I said I HOT two Dobermanns to SchH III. I never said anything about scores. I trial, I fail (sometimes) I learn, I move on.
Here is the 2012 FCI World Champion Mario Verslyppe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0IZk1aWxyk

Notice on the call out of the blind starting at 8:43
The dog sits on his foot. He moves his foot and repositions the dog. Cheating or smart handling? When you or your mentor win any World Championship multiple times with different dogs then you can talk about "cheating"


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Any chance this thread can be a tad less personal/nasty ?


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Actually, there's TWO complaints against you on ROR. I can send you the links if you like.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Any chance this thread can be a tad less personal/nasty ?


When people stop telling me I don't know what I've seen and let me have my opinion without getting their panties in a wad, sure. But when they start attacking my opinion because I haven't titled my dog to IPO I yet, and attack my mentor because he doesn't trial and fail as often as they do, I'm going to fight back.

Sorry, but if people want to back up their claims they can leave my experience and Chris's out of it. It's got nothing to do with the validity of the claim. If we're going to pull out the stops, I'm going to bring out what I know.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Let's try anyway.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Thomas Barriano said:


> You're the perfectionist not me. I said I HOT two Dobermanns to SchH III. I never said anything about scores. I trial, I fail (sometimes) I learn, I move on.
> Here is the 2012 FCI World Champion Mario Verslyppe
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0IZk1aWxyk
> 
> ...


First it was IPO I, then IPO 111, then Nationals and now I need to win World Championships _multiple times_?

If Mario didn't move his foot he couldn't move. So, IMO, it was necessary.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

*Rip off Report and nut jobs*

Anyone that wonders what Katie is referring to

"I also spent some time working for Ripoff Report, where there's an odd complaint against you selling someone a sick puppy. Totally irrelevant, but kind of weird. I'm not blaming you for anything, but just thought you should at least be aware (you can rebut the claim on the site)."

Google my name and two reports come up by Kwame Winston
(one on Rip off Report and one on the Complaints Board) both have been refuted if you scroll down on either page.
I'm done responding to ignorant posts made by Little Girls with no experience and poorly researched "facts".


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Laura Bollschweiler said:


> I thought of a good one. Is it cheating if you're competing at the regional level, and your SchH 3 dog won't give up the dumbbell. You give him FIVE commands to out, and the judge tells you something to the effect of, pinch him. So you comply with the judge's orders, and dog lets go and you end up with a 91 in obedience. Is that cheating?
> 
> Laura


Did that really happen or is it just a hypothetical?

T


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

All I know is just because something falls under the guise of handler help does not mean it's cheating. Just because someone gives handler help does not mean they were not prepared for the trial either. Someone who gives handler help is most certainly not disrespecting the sport or the judge. 

Here's another example for you. Difficult tracking, you know your dog, and you know that your dog is not paying attention for whatever reason, is losing focus, lifts his head then suddenly has a vacant look or whatever your dog does. So you give an extra "such" command. You did this on purpose, you know that if the judge hears you, it's going to mean a loss of points, but you also know if you don't do it, your dog might go completely off track. This is not cheating, this is not trialing with a dog who wasn't prepared, and this isn't disrespecting the sport or the judge, it's just reading the dog and being a good handler. So tell me - if the judge didn't hear you, will you interupt his critique to tell him he didn't hear your extra command and to please adjust your score accordingly?

So who's to say in the example you gave there is anything different? The guy who was saying "fus fus fus" might have been willing to lose the points but knew that he would still pass the BH, and if he said nothing, maybe he didn't think he had enough dog on that day to pass, because for whatever reason, his perhaps normally good dog , was not working up to snuff, and rather than have to re-do the BH, the handler was willing to lose the points. And by the way, maybe he purposely gave the command when he thought the judge wasn't paying attention or maybe it so happens that was the time when the dog needed to be encouraged, who knows.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

*Re: Rip off Report and nut jobs*



Thomas Barriano said:


> Anyone that wonders what Katie is referring to
> 
> "I also spent some time working for Ripoff Report, where there's an odd complaint against you selling someone a sick puppy. Totally irrelevant, but kind of weird. I'm not blaming you for anything, but just thought you should at least be aware (you can rebut the claim on the site)."
> 
> ...


I research my facts just fine. No, I didn't scroll down to the bottom, I didn't need to. If I believed any reports on dog people to be true I wouldn't talk to half of them. Actually ROR can be really entertaining, people will try to sue prostitutes, it's funny. And as far as the other quote, I fully admitted I was wrong and changed it myself before you even had enough time to type your response.

If you were done responding to ignorant posts by little girls, you should have stopped a long time ago. I honestly don't know what you've ever gotten out of it. You fight people all over the Internet about stupid shit and have to talk down on them when they have an opinion that doesn't fit yours. The only time you've ever said anything good about me was when I was doing helper work with David F, and then you found out I worked with Chris and had nothing good to say since. Now I'm a little girl living in ignorance. You hate Chris, and you hate everyone that trains with him. You seem to hate a lot of other people too anyway.

My opinion really was simple. It's everyone else who blew it out of proportion because I am ignorant and don't know anything. If you really felt that way, why did any of you ever respond? 

I never said anyone was cheating, I never said I had a crystal ball and could see in the future, I stated an opinion. If it's too ignorant and blissful for you then you should just ignore it. But that seems to be too hard to do.

So if you're done here, go ahead and shut the **** up and stop talking, and hey, since I'm so little and ignorant, PICK ON SOMEONE YOUR OWN SIZE.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

susan tuck said:


> All I know is just because something falls under the guise of handler help does not mean it's cheating. Just because someone gives handler help does not mean they were not prepared for the trial either. Someone who gives handler help is most certainly not disrespecting the sport or the judge.
> 
> Here's another example for you. Difficult tracking, you know your dog, and you know that your dog is not paying attention for whatever reason, is losing focus, lifts his head then suddenly has a vacant look or whatever your dog does. So you give an extra "such" command. You did this on purpose, you know that if the judge hears you, it's going to mean a loss of points, but you also know if you don't do it, your dog might go completely off track. This is not cheating, this is not trialing with a dog who wasn't prepared, and this isn't disrespecting the sport or the judge, it's just reading the dog and being a good handler. So tell me - if the judge didn't hear you, will you interupt his critique to tell him he didn't hear your extra command and to please adjust your score accordingly?
> 
> So who's to say in the example you gave there is anything different? The guy who was saying "fus fus fus" might have been willing to lose the points but knew that he would still pass the BH, and if he said nothing, maybe he didn't think he had enough dog on that day to pass, because for whatever reason, his perhaps normally good dog , was not working up to snuff, and rather than have to re-do the BH, the handler was willing to lose the points. And by the way, maybe he purposely gave the command when he thought the judge wasn't paying attention or maybe it so happens that was the time when the dog needed to be encouraged, who knows.


Susan, I NEVER EVER SAID that all handler help was cheating. I gave specific examples that I was referring to and simply said that I wished people wouldn't do that.

Why you and everyone else wants to lump it into every possible situation that could happen in a trial is beyond me.


----------



## Doug Zaga (Mar 28, 2010)

*Re: Rip off Report and nut jobs*



Katie Finlay said:


> So if you're done here, go ahead and shut the **** up and stop talking, and hey, since I'm so little and ignorant, PICK ON SOMEONE YOUR OWN SIZE.


Can I change the subject...did you ever get any video doing OB in short shorts???


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

*Re: Rip off Report and nut jobs*



Doug Zaga said:


> Can I change the subject...did you ever get any video doing OB in short shorts???


LOL. Yes. But I look terrible, so we'll wait until next summer


----------



## Doug Zaga (Mar 28, 2010)

*Re: Rip off Report and nut jobs*



Doug Zaga said:


> Can I change the subject...did you ever get any video doing OB in short shorts???





Katie Finlay said:


> LOL. Yes. But I look terrible, so we'll wait until next summer


I will be the judge of that...and no handler help allowed!!!!


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Katie Finlay said:


> Susan, I NEVER EVER SAID that all handler help was cheating. I gave specific examples that I was referring to and simply said that I wished people wouldn't do that.
> 
> Why you and everyone else wants to lump it into every possible situation that could happen in a trial is beyond me.


Because Katie, I'm trying to show you that your example of someone saying "fus fus fus" is not cheating, it's not any different than any other kind of handler help people give, it's just extra commands. If you take the position that the person who said "fus fus fus" was cheating because they knew what they were doing, said it intentionally, and therefore must not have been ready to trial and was disrespecting the sport and the judge, then you have to believe all the other examples of handler help I have given you fall in the same boat. I think what you are failing to understand is that people pick their battles, people are willing to lose points in one area, if it means not loosing more points in another, it happens all the time, and it's really not cheating.

When the day comes and if you and your dog go out there and do really good, and you don't need to give even a little handler help, or maybe you do need to give a little handler help, I would congratulate you and I would never call you a cheater.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

susan tuck said:


> Because Katie, I'm trying to show you that your example of someone saying "fus fus fus" is not cheating, it's not any different than any other kind of handler help people give, it's just extra commands. If you take the position that the person who said "fus fus fus" was cheating and must not have been ready to trial and was disrepsecting the sport and the judge, then you have to believe all the other examples of handler help I have given you fall in the same boat. I think what you are failing to understand is that people pick their battles, people are willing to lose points in one area, if it means not loosing more points in another, it happens all the time, it's not cheating.


What happens if I know this was not the case though? If I know this person consistently does this on a regular basis with their dogs?

To me it's cheating. I guess I view it the same way as I do stealing. If someone steals because their poor and have no food for their family, I certainly wouldn't judge them the way I would any young hooligan who just robs someone.

Does that make sense? To me a single instance and an opinion on it isn't universal to every single situation.

Emphasis on "to me" and "to me" to make it known that this is my opinion, I'm not trying to force it on anyone, and I'm not claiming it to be fact.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Katie Finlay said:


> What happens if I know this was not the case though? If I know this person consistently does this on a regular basis with their dogs?
> 
> To me it's cheating. I guess I view it the same way as I do stealing. If someone steals because their poor and have no food for their family, I certainly wouldn't judge them the way I would any young hooligan who just robs someone.
> 
> Does that make sense? To me a single instance and an opinion on it isn't universal to every single situation.


Then the person might very well be a crappy handler/trainer, but in any case, it's no reflection on you or your dogs. I would try to ignore it, that's all you can do.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

susan tuck said:


> Then the person might very well be a crappy handler/trainer, but in any case, it's no reflection on you or your dogs. I would try to ignore it, that's all you can do.


That's my point. I know it's of no reflection on me or my dog. But when I enter a trial and there is more than one person who I know trains and trials this way... it makes the trial feel less worthwhile.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Katie Finlay said:


> What happens if I know this was not the case though? If I know this person consistently does this on a regular basis with their dogs?
> 
> To me it's cheating. I guess I view it the same way as I do stealing. If someone steals because their poor and have no food for their family, I certainly wouldn't judge them the way I would any young hooligan who just robs someone.
> 
> ...


Katie,

I'm trying to figure out your angle and level of passion regarding this. The new nickle and dime points off in the herding world is "handler assist"--same as what you refer to as handler help. If I go out and use my stock stick to block my dog, its handler assist. If I use my body to influence the stock instead of the dog doing 100% of the work, its handler assist. There are points off for handler assist. So if I do it 10 times in a trial and its pretty prevalent in my handling with my started dogs, to you its cheating? You're worried that the judge may never see it and if that's the case, its cheating? Somehow the handler that relies on handler help consistently from trial to trial is cheapening the sport and somehow the value of your individual title? I'm not getting the theft analogy but that's okay. Regarding handler help, you are making a call on those that are capable of better training vs. those that are not? I was running a client dog in herding last year that wigged out in a trial and was blowing a certain command and repeatedly overflanking. I could stop him with a stock stick block. I'd never heard of being pointed out on HA when the stock proceed through the course on line. One comment from people that trained with me was whether the judge hit me harder given my experience vs a newbie handler with a newbie dog. Possibly--don't know. But personally, consistent judging shouldn't be about "who" it is. You seem to have the attitude that a person shouldn't even step on the field with the dog unless he has trained to X level. I'm kinda like Susan, particularly at the started level there are things you THOUGHT you addressed and then suddenly you are on the trial field and sh** happens and you are doing damage control. Quite frankly at that point I'm trying to pull out a Q and handle my way through it. I don't really care if its a 63/100 or whatever qualifying is. There are people who will call their run and pull their dog off the field though because the points aren't going to be high enough. They'd rather call the run than get a leg with a low score. FOR ME that is a tremendous amount of ego but if that's what they want to do with their entry fees, so be it.

T


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Once a judge told me to put my articles in my bait bag the night before I trialed for a TR1. I think that's cheating. Backfired on me too, when my dog got to the first article he mouthed it, something he had never done before! I still got an SG score, even with points off for mouthing the article, but I've never forgotten about that bad advise!


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Katie,
> 
> I'm trying to figure out your angle and level of passion regarding this. The new nickle and dime points off in the herding world is "handler assist"--same as what you refer to as handler help. If I go out and use my stock stick to block my dog, its handler assist. If I use my body to influence the stock instead of the dog doing 100% of the work, its handler assist. There are points off for handler assist. So if I do it 10 times in a trial and its pretty prevalent in my handling with my started dogs, to you its cheating? You're worried that the judge may never see it and if that's the case, its cheating? Somehow the handler that relies on handler help consistently from trial to trial is cheapening the sport and somehow the value of your individual title? I'm not getting the theft analogy but that's okay. Regarding handler help, you are making a call on those that are capable of better training vs. those that are not? I was running a client dog in herding last year that wigged out in a trial and was blowing a certain command and repeatedly overflanking. I could stop him with a stock stick block. I'd never heard of being pointed out on HA when the stock proceed through the course on line. One comment from people that trained with me was whether the judge hit me harder given my experience vs a newbie handler with a newbie dog. Possibly--don't know. But personally, consistent judging shouldn't be about "who" it is. You seem to have the attitude that a person shouldn't even step on the field with the dog unless he has trained to X level. I'm kinda like Susan, particularly at the started level there are things you THOUGHT you addressed and then suddenly you are on the trial field and sh** happens and you are doing damage control. Quite frankly at that point I'm trying to pull out a Q and handle my way through it. I don't really care if its a 63/100 or whatever qualifying is. There are people who will call their run and pull their dog off the field though because the points aren't going to be high enough. They'd rather call the run than get a leg with a low score. FOR ME that is a tremendous amount of ego but if that's what they want to do with their entry fees, so be it.
> 
> T


T, 

See: 

"Originally Posted by susan tuck 
Because Katie, I'm trying to show you that your example of someone saying "fus fus fus" is not cheating, it's not any different than any other kind of handler help people give, it's just extra commands. If you take the position that the person who said "fus fus fus" was cheating and must not have been ready to trial and was disrepsecting the sport and the judge, then you have to believe all the other examples of handler help I have given you fall in the same boat. I think what you are failing to understand is that people pick their battles, people are willing to lose points in one area, if it means not loosing more points in another, it happens all the time, it's not cheating.

_What happens if I know this was not the case though? If I know this person consistently does this on a regular basis with their dogs?

To me it's cheating. I guess I view it the same way as I do stealing. If someone steals because their poor and have no food for their family, I certainly wouldn't judge them the way I would any young hooligan who just robs someone.

Does that make sense? *To me a single instance and an opinion on it isn't universal to every single situation.*

Emphasis on "to me" and "to me" to make it known that this is my opinion, I'm not trying to force it on anyone, and I'm not claiming it to be fact._"

And:

"Originally Posted by susan tuck 
Then the person might very well be a crappy handler/trainer, but in any case, it's no reflection on you or your dogs. I would try to ignore it, that's all you can do.

_That's my point. I know it's of no reflection on me or my dog. But when I enter a trial and there is more than one person who I know trains and trials this way... it makes the trial feel less worthwhile_."

If my view has not be understood by now (regardless of whether it was agreed with or not) then it's never going to be. I'm not sure how else I can say it.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Katie Finlay said:


> T,
> 
> See:
> 
> ...


Oh I"ve read all your posts--some multiple times--I guess in disbelief. I guess I'm like Susan, you can personally view them as a lousy handler/training for failure to recognize certain holes or being content with the mediocre score, but cheating???? I know people who will spend 2-3 seasons going for the perfect sunday stroll in the park HIT/RHIT started run. I want to get the started level out of the way and focus on advanced. The rules state what is and is not allowed behavior. Anything on the part of the handler that would be considered cheating is usually a DQ in the rules and I think its up to the judge to judge the run, not the peanut gallery. Suddenly in my area, you have stock handlers calling runs and scribes telling judges what they believed happened on the field. Oh well---to each's own.

T


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Oh I"ve read all your posts--some multiple times--I guess in disbelief. I guess I'm like Susan, you can personally view them as a lousy handler/training for failure to recognize certain holes or being content with the mediocre score, but cheating???? I know people who will spend 2-3 seasons going for the perfect sunday stroll in the park HIT/RHIT started run. I want to get the started level out of the way and focus on advanced. The rules state what is and is not allowed behavior. Anything on the part of the handler that would be considered cheating is usually a DQ in the rules and I think its up to the judge to judge the run, not the peanut gallery. Suddenly in my area, you have stock handlers calling runs and scribes telling judges what they believed happened on the field. Oh well---to each's own.
> 
> T


Then you must be reading wrong because you're missing the key elements of everything I said.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Katie Finlay said:


> Then you must be reading wrong because you're missing the key elements of everything I said.


And what key elements are those? In case I was missing, I asked questions and you copied the previous posts.

T


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Did that really happen or is it just a hypothetical?
> 
> T


It happened at the WDA regionals maybe four years ago. One of the sorriest trials I ever saw.

All my examples were pretty much true. 

Laura


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> And what key elements are those? In case I was missing, I asked questions and you copied the previous posts.
> 
> T


The answers were in the posts. I honestly don't have the energy anymore. If you just don't get it that's fine but I don't know how else to explain.


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

Part of my confusion is that you started out by saying somone said Fuss during their whole routine, which is heavy handler help. But then you changed it to under their breath and called it cheating, which I still don't get. I gave a second command to get my dog to platz on the down in motion. I really don't know if the judge heard it or not. I kinda don't care. I did what I needed to do at that point. But apparently if I said it quietly and the judge didn't hear, I'm cheating.

Doesn't matter to me. I guess it's just fun to mess with the new kid. No, you haven't seen tracking harder than at nationals...because I don't think you've flown your dog to go track and had the stress on yourself and your dog leading up to and at a national. All that stuff adds up. And really, let's be honest. You live in So Cal. There's nothing around here that imitates what you see in other parts of the country. Unless you've got a line on the secret soy bean fields...

Have fun with your dog!

Laura


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Laura Bollschweiler said:


> Part of my confusion is that you started out by saying somone said Fuss during their whole routine, which is heavy handler help. But then you changed it to under their breath and called it cheating, which I still don't get. I gave a second command to get my dog to platz on the down in motion. I really don't know if the judge heard it or not. I kinda don't care. I did what I needed to do at that point. But apparently if I said it quietly and the judge didn't hear, I'm cheating.
> 
> Doesn't matter to me. I guess it's just fun to mess with the new kid. No, you haven't seen tracking harder than at nationals...because I don't think you've flown your dog to go track and had the stress on yourself and your dog leading up to and at a national. All that stuff adds up. And really, let's be honest. You live in So Cal. There's nothing around here that imitates what you see in other parts of the country. Unless you've got a line on the secret soy bean fields...
> 
> ...


Honestly, I'm not going to get through to you. I didn't change anything I said. And Susan seems to be the only one that gets that nothing is universally true.

I've seen tracking CONDITIONS harder than nationals here in Southern California. I never said I traveled on a plane with my dog or added the stress. No, we don't have soybean fields. But we have a large majority of terrain here in So Cal that replicate tracking CONDITIONS at nationals events. 

AWDF 2012 Nationals: http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=bsRtM7azah8&desktop_uri=/watch?v=bsRtM7azah8

I have video that I taped of Chris tracking in grass up to his chin, it was literally taller than me. Here in So Cal.

We have all types of grass, all types of dirt, and a lot of stuff in between.

I tracked this two weeks ago: 








And here:








The first was hard dirt, hard sticks and thick stems/leaves. The second was soft dirt but very dry brush. Two totally different conditions, 30 minutes drive apart. The first photo was taken where Chris tracked in the grass above my head. Same park.

We might not have everything but we have a lot of variety.


----------



## Mario Fernandez (Jun 21, 2008)

Interesting thread. Going from rules, to what others do in a trial....WDF is like reality TV, got some points and as well as garbage. enjoy reading it thou......Got to be around of really good handlers over the years from perfectionist to the everyday person that comes once a week. No matter how well the dog is trained, the trial is the great truth, it will show your flaws and holes in your training. The element everybody forgets are that dogs are animals and not machines and have a mind of their own. Thing can and will go south quickly with no leash, no e-collar. It is only a matter of time, you as the handler will get humbled by dog sports. When I see this happen, I watch to see if that person maintain their composure. A person true showing of their character and see if they stick out and try again or go and never to be seen again. It's going to happen to everybody sooner or later.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Mario Fernandez said:


> Interesting thread. Going from rules, to what others do in a trial....WDF is like reality TV, got some points and as well as garbage. enjoy reading it thou......Got to be around of really good handlers over the years from perfectionist to the everyday person that comes once a week. No matter how well the dog is trained, the trial is the great truth, it will show your flaws and holes in your training. The element everybody forgets are that dogs are animals and not machines and have a mind of their own. Thing can and will go south quickly with no leash, no e-collar. It is only a matter of time, you as the handler will get humbled by dog sports. When I see this happen, I watch to see if that person maintain their composure. A person true showing of their character and see if they stick out and try again or go and never to be seen again. It's going to happen to everybody sooner or later.


I think just working with dogs in general is humbling. I never said I was better than anybody. So I don't know if your "only a matter of time" is directed at me or not.


----------



## Mario Fernandez (Jun 21, 2008)

Not directed at you or anybody in praticular. It was advice given to me by a guy who has been on 12 WUSV/FCI teams...I told him is dog was flawless in training. We were training in the rain at a new stadium getting ready for a national event. After putting him away and coming to talk to me he said, it only a matter of time the dog is going to look at me and give me the finger in a trial. He was right.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Mario Fernandez said:


> Not directed at you or anybody in praticular. It was advice given to me by a guy who has been on 12 WUSV/FCI teams...I told him is dog was flawless in training. We were training in the rain at a new stadium getting ready for a national event. After putting him away and coming to talk to me he said, it only a matter of time the dog is going to look at me and give me the finger in a trial. He was right.


Bummer! My dog has ADD so I can see her doing something embarrassing, but not out of spite. Or is it... lol


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Katie Finlay said:


> To me it's cheating. I guess I view it the same way as I do stealing. If someone steals because their poor and have no food for their family, I certainly wouldn't judge them the way I would any young hooligan who just robs someone.


 The bottom line is Katie, when you write the rules you can make extra commands "cheating" until then by the rules it is "Handler Help"..

According to the rules

Cheating = Immediate Disqualification
Handler Help = Point deduction

extra commands are either handler help or "out of control" (when the dog IS out of control) but no where in the rules are they considered "cheating".

Your entitled to your opinion but so are the others... This is a very difficult sport and some feel you criticizing people who are actually competeing is like someone reading a book on brain surgery and then criticizing Doctor's who are actually doing it. 

Can we move on to maybe discussing something useful again???


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Frank Phillips said:


> Your entitled to your opinion but so are the others... This is a very difficult sport and some feel you criticizing people who are actually competing is like someone reading a book on brain surgery and then criticizing Doctor's who are actually doing it.


Would that be like getting advise on your sex life from your Priest? ;-)


----------



## Holden Sawyer (Feb 22, 2011)

Well, that was interesting. I just wanted to understand the pattern so I could figure out whether to shoot for the earlier or later trial. Started training the sit without the pause and he is picking it up pretty quickly. But if he's ready otherwise I may just hit the earlier trial since I may not be able to do IPO1 anyway, and then I can go for things like tracking titles and AD. I am hoping tonight there will be some chance to walk through the pattern and I can ask more then. Sorry to hear that there is a perception of cheating, etc. in the sport.


----------



## Mario Fernandez (Jun 21, 2008)

Holden don't you live in Sacramento area? Where are you looking at getting your BH at?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Would that be like getting advise on your sex life from your Priest? ;-)


 Watch it now, we're supposed to be staying away from these types of orbits. Besides, it can depend on the priest.:wink:


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Watch it now, we're supposed to be staying away from these types of orbits. Besides, it can depend on the priest.:wink:


Aw, that's no fun. I happen to like my orbit, it's part of my character LOL. :wink:


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Nicole Stark said:


> Aw, that's no fun. I happen to like my orbit, it's part of my character LOL. :wink:


 
Hahahahah, well there are some we select for and some that randomly appear despite our best efforts.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Hahahahah, well there are some we select for and some that randomly appear despite our best efforts.


And then there are those that are encouraged to show themselves, through training, both good and bad......


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

And those that don't because they don't exist, despite your best efforts, or encouragement, or training. . .And the beat goes on. . .


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

And then, this one time at band camp... this is the point where I wheel out my wooden Trojan horse and open it up to disclose a neatly carved middle finger proudly displayed almost as if it were waving hello back.

Ignore me. I've had a killer headache for 3 weeks straight. At some point it becomes justified that I no longer make any sense.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Nicole Stark said:


> And then, this one time at band camp... this is the point where I wheel out my wooden Trojan horse and open it up to disclose a neatly carved middle finger proudly displayed almost as if it were waving hello back.
> 
> Ignore me. I've had a killer headache for 3 weeks straight. At some point it becomes justified that I no longer make any sense.


You have more cogent thoughts than some, on their best days....


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> You have more cogent thoughts than some, on their best days....


=D>


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> ...cogent...


I was AP English and am prepping for my Master's in Linguistics, and I learned a new word today.

Thanks! 

I probably never knew it because it doesn't apply to me, lol


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Katie Finlay said:


> I was AP English and am prepping for my Master's in Linguistics, and I learned a new word today.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> I probably never knew it because it doesn't apply to me, lol


 
I am a lowly dog handler. have a few credit hours of college. got a lot of Cs in high school. I heard that red headed Judge Milan use it repeatedly in one show. I just had to know what it meant so I looked it up...Both our experiences and $3.25 will buy one of us a latte.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Dave,

I'm reminded of the difference between educated and intelligent every day. Most of the current College Professors (and even High School teachers) would be fired for incompetence if they worked in the private sector. Instead they pollute the minds of our youth :-( 

Anyway back on topic. How do I retrain my motion exercises for the IPO I now that my dog expects me to stop?


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Dave,
> 
> I'm reminded of the difference between educated and intelligent every day. Most of the current College Professors (and even High School teachers) would be fired for incompetence if they worked in the private sector. Instead they pollute the minds of our youth :-(
> 
> Anyway back on topic. How do I retrain my motion exercises for the IPO I now that my dog expects me to stop?


Double handle english bowtie. It'll only take once


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Thomas Barriano said:


> How do I retrain my motion exercises for the IPO I now that my dog expects me to stop?


Right Thomas. Sit means sit. =D>


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Nicole I think Fred Hassen has that phrase trade marked? 
I don't think "double handle English Bow tie" is yet? Stick that in Google and see what comes up ;-)


----------



## Holden Sawyer (Feb 22, 2011)

Follow up question:

I remember somewhere seeing a drawing or chart of the pattern with the number of steps and pace, etc. Does anyone know of a link to a chart like that? It sounds like the rough outline of the pattern has not been changed much, correct?

Also, with all these rule changes, I can't seem to find just a link to a regular rule book for the BH -- (?). I have to admit it is un-nerving to talk to long term handlers struggling with the changes, etc. I don't know why it is hard to find. Any other rulebook seems easy to find and download on the internet. Maybe its me.

I just want to get out there and practice walking it without my dog.

Thanks!


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

You can find it on Chico Sanford's webpage on the bottom
http://www.chicostanford.com/bh.htm
Don't pay any attention to the written instructions. They're the old style motion exercises NOT the new pause/motion exercises


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

www.fci.be/circulaires/55-2011-annex-en.pdf

Page 23


----------



## Holden Sawyer (Feb 22, 2011)

Thomas and Frank, you are the best! Thank you so much for sharing your expertise. Now I can go out to the local park, pace up and down without my dog, mutter to myself (counting), at times appear to be talking to others ("hi, my name is holden and i'm checking in for public humiliation.") Maybe I'll even add shaking hands with unseen others. Should be interesting. :razz:


----------



## Sue DiCero (Sep 2, 2006)

Maybe a clarification is this:

Handler help is when the handler does something intentionally in front of the judge. The judge is responsible and accountable for seeing all handler help and deducting it accordingly and consistently, across handlers and throughout the trial. If a judge does not deduct for handler help, then they are sending the message that it is acceptable.

You, as the handle, need to be aware that points can and should be deducted. Not all performances are 100%. If you know that your dog is not 100% on the sit out of motion, do you lose the entire exercise or take the chance (and should not be by chance) that you will get points deducted for handler help? You are consciously doing it front of the judge…… 

But, if you are constantly depending on handler help throughout the exercises and in every trial, might want to re-think training…..

Cheating is when you purposely do something and try to hide it from the judge in order to improve the scores, performance. This could be full on cheating with toy, food, etc on the handler to someone off the field, but in vision of the dog with a training aid during the performance (e.g. ball in pocket, string hanging out where dog can see….).

In both scenarios, it is ultimately up to the judge to see and address the situation. Consistent and across all handlers.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

I found the following on the AWDF website today. I added the bold highlight to point to what we were discussing on this thread. So as I said earlier in this thread. When you give handler help on purpose you are cheating. 

[FONT=&quot]Hello sport friends,
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I had the pleasure of attending the FCI Leistungsrichter seminar Judge Seminar along with UScA judge Frank Phillips, and AWMA judge Cynthia Zimmerman. This event was held in Nova Gorica, Slovenia. In this seminar, discussions and rule clarifications were held regarding interpretations of the latest trial rules. The meeting was run by FCI Working Commission President Frans Jansen. Each phase of our sport had a guest speaker from the FCI working commission. These speakers were also the authors of the latest FCI IPO rules. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]During these discussions questions and answers were given in multiple languages. The idea of this is that all countries that follow the IPO program are to have their judges follow the same set of rules. Fifty five (55) judges from throughout the world, some with interpreters, attended this meeting. I have listed below some of the high points of these discussions. 

Gunter Diegel started the Saturday morning discussion on Phase C, the protection work. In his talk, he stressed that judges are to look for balance in nerve, disposition, and guideability, along with physical and psychological strength. He also stated just as importantly that the dog must clearly out and must show power in guarding, and the handler/dog team must work in harmony. 

Helpers must wear jackets, and must allow the dog a chance to show the guarding work. 


As far as specific rules go:[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot] If a dog can not be called out of the blind after the command is given 3 times, the team is disqualified. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] The dog can jump during the guarding phase, but can not touch the helper. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] If on the escape the dog breaks and runs to the helper, and can be recalled the exercise can continue. If the dog can not be recalled the team will be disqualified. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] The transition phase (when the dog releases the grip) begins when the helper stops moving. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] The dog needs to show the out in the front of the helper, and must show a clear out. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] The dog must remain 5 paces behind the helper during the rear transport. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] The handler must wait for the judge to give the release command on the long catch, and up to 3 points can be deducted for an unruly dog. Also please note that if the dog leaves or escapes from the handler on the long catch, the dog can be dismissed as out of control. [/FONT]
 [FONT=&quot] 
Robert Markschlaeger followed by leading a discussion on phase B, obedience. He stated that in our judging we must judge from the heart, not the rule book. Mr. Markschlaeger pointed out that the judge was to be in a position to view the team throughout the entire routine. He stressed that during the free heeling exercise a very positive behavior needs to be demonstrated. Handler help needs to be taken into account during all exercises even if the dog is "up". *He said heavy handler help is unsportsmanlike conduct and can not be allowed.*

Some specifics were mentioned:[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot] A handler can only have one basic position for the send away exercise.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] During retrieving exercises, the dog must show power throughout, including the jumping to earn an excellent. If during the retrieve, the dog passes the dumbbell by one step or less there is to be no point loss on that portion of the exercise. [/FONT]
 [FONT=&quot] 
Sunday morning began with Wilfried Schaepermeier leading the discussion regarding phase "A", tracking. It was stressed that an excellent tracking dog has to display self-sureness, joy, concentration, and correctness to the work. 

Specifics items in the tracking discussion that were mentioned:[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot] A dog must be given a tracking command. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] The team must report to the track prepared to start.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Restarts must be given with the handler standing next to the dog. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Slight checking is not faulty.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] A dog tracking with an open mouth is not always faulty. Other factors should be taken into consideration. [/FONT]
 
*[FONT=&quot]Yours in Sport,
Al Govednik
AWDF president[/FONT]*


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Actually, Christopher, I don't read anywhere in that statement that says all handler help, if intentional, is cheating. I do see mention of "heavy" handler help, so now I guess we can have another 10 page discussion of what constitutes "heavy" handler help.
:lol: 

I would really like some clarification regarding:

"If on the escape the dog breaks and runs to the helper, and can be recalled the exercise can continue. If the dog can not be recalled the team will be disqualified."

Is he talking about when you are fusing to position before platzing or is he talking about after platzing the dog must now stay until handler gives the arrest command? Because if he means the latter, then the exercise has changed.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> Actually, Christopher, I don't read anywhere in that statement that says all handler help, if intentional, is cheating. I do see mention of "heavy" handler help, so now I guess we can have another 10 page discussion of what constitutes "heavy" handler help.


Why don't you define it for yourself? Why don't you give 3 examples of what YOU would consider heavy help?


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Christopher Smith said:


> Why don't you define it for yourself? Why don't you give 3 examples of what YOU would consider heavy help?


I'm not a judge, so I will leave that call to the judges.

I do hope Frank sees this thread because I would appreciate clarification regarding the escape.


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

I noticed this:

"Sunday morning began with Wilfried Schaepermeier leading the discussion regarding phase "A", tracking. It was stressed that an excellent tracking dog has to display self-sureness, joy, concentration, and correctness to the work. 

Specifics items in the tracking discussion that were mentioned:
A dog must be given a tracking command.
The team must report to the track prepared to start.
*Restarts must be given with the handler standing next to the dog.*
Slight checking is not faulty.
A dog tracking with an open mouth is not always faulty. Other factors should be taken into consideration."

Wasn't this also a subject of discussion at one point? Is it considered handler help if you stand behind the dog for a restart? Heavy handler help? Cheating?

Laura


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

susan tuck said:


> I'm not a judge, so I will leave that call to the judges.
> 
> I do hope Frank sees this thread because I would appreciate clarification regarding the escape.


To clarify, I don't think my opinion is relevant because I do think that many people will have different opinions as to what is or isn't "heavy". For instance, you feel any intentional handler help would fall under the definition, and is cheating, while I don't think every purposely given cue is cheating. So I'd rather have the opinion of the person who is ultimately entering the scores in my dogs books!


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Christopher,

Who pays for these junkets where Americans get a vacation to Slovenia to listen to one (or two) judges give their personal interpretation of vague rules? WTF bottom line every judge will interpret the rules slightly differently and terms like "heavy handler help" will depend on the judge.


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> I'm not a judge, so I will leave that call to the judges.
> 
> I do hope Frank sees this thread because I would appreciate clarification regarding the escape.


 OK, I was also at the FCI meeting. what this is talking about is.....

You heel to escape setup position, you show a basic, down the dog and return to the blind.
Before the judge signals the helper to go, the dog breaks and goes to the helper (who is standing still). If the dog bites the sleeve or the helper he is DQed. If the dog runs up tho the helper and starts to guard, the handler calls the dog back to the escape setup position, downs the dog and goes to the blind again. If the dog breaks a second time, DQed.... If the dog stays in place until the judge signals and the helper goes then you are allowed to continue protection with an appropriate deduction for the control problems.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Laura Bollschweiler said:


> I noticed this:
> 
> "Sunday morning began with Wilfried Schaepermeier leading the discussion regarding phase "A", tracking. It was stressed that an excellent tracking dog has to display self-sureness, joy, concentration, and correctness to the work.
> 
> ...


Standing next to the dog means just that...next to. It does not mean standing to the side of the dog. I've gone over this with several judges, trialed and got 100 points on an FH2 and know others that start their dogs from the same position that I described, like this clown right here.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0IZk1aWxyk :mrgreen:


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Frank Phillips said:


> OK, I was also at the FCI meeting. what this is talking about is.....
> 
> You heel to escape setup position, you show a basic, down the dog and return to the blind.
> Before the judge signals the helper to go, the dog breaks and goes to the helper (who is standing still). If the dog bites the sleeve or the helper he is DQed. If the dog runs up tho the helper and starts to guard, the handler calls the dog back to the escape setup position, downs the dog and goes to the blind again. If the dog breaks a second time, DQed.... If the dog stays in place until the judge signals and the helper goes then you are allowed to continue protection with an appropriate deduction for the control problems.


That is address in Al's report in a different section and has nothing to do with handler help. And what do you consider heavy handler help?


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Christopher,
> 
> Who pays for these junkets where Americans get a vacation to Slovenia to listen to one (or two) judges give their personal interpretation of vague rules? WTF bottom line every judge will interpret the rules slightly differently and terms like "heavy handler help" will depend on the judge.


So Thomas, give me a few example of what YOU would consider heavy handler help?


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> To clarify, I don't think my opinion is relevant because I do think that many people will have different opinions as to what is or isn't "heavy". For instance, you feel any intentional handler help would fall under the definition, and is cheating, while I don't think every purposely given cue is cheating. So I'd rather have the opinion of the person who is ultimately entering the scores in my dogs books!


 Heavy Handler help is heavy handler help and points will be deducted accordingly. There is a difference in handler help, say one handler slows his pace slightly before the sit command and another handler turns his shoulders 90 degrees and looks down at the dog screams "sit" in the dog's face.....One is slight handler help, one is heavy handler help...One will have a small deduction, one will have a heavy deduction....No one in the Judges meeting said ANYTHING about handler help being cheating or being treated as such...It is help and will result in a deduction....The only place I have ever heard it called cheating is on the internet.....


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Christopher Smith said:


> That is address in Al's report in a different section and has nothing to do with handler help.


 Yes but she specifically asked about the escape in the post that I quoted.....so that is what i answered....


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Frank Phillips said:


> Heavy Handler help is heavy handler help and points will be deducted accordingly. There is a difference in handler help, say one handler slows his pace slightly before the sit command and another handler turns his shoulders 90 degrees and looks down at the dog screams "sit" in the dog's face.....One is slight handler help, one is heavy handler help...One will have a small deduction, one will have a heavy deduction....No one in the Judges meeting said ANYTHING about handler help being cheating or being treated as such...It is help and will result in a deduction....The only place I have ever heard it called cheating is on the internet.....


Are you saying that unsportsmanlike conduct is a point deduction?


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Christopher,
> 
> Who pays for these junkets where Americans get a vacation to Slovenia to listen to one (or two) judges give their personal interpretation of vague rules? WTF bottom line every judge will interpret the rules slightly differently and terms like "heavy handler help" will depend on the judge.


 Thomas...once again you are spouting off about something you know nothing about.

Nobody was listening to 1 or 2 judges give their "personal interpretation of vague rules"...The presenters were the Judges that actually WROTE the rules. There were many discussion that included 5 of the 7 authors of the rules. So there was no personal interpretation. There was a lot of discussions on how to break down and apply weight to specific portions of each exercise. To try to get more consistant judging across the board. There was also an emphasis on systems for holding a line and staying consistant throughout a champioship..... The USCA Judges meeting was going on at the same time so I was emailing Nathaniel any clearification and he would relay to the rest of USCA judges in real time. The problem for you is you do not want the judging to get better and more consistant, then you would have nothing to bitch and complain about constantly on the internet...oh wait, you would find something I'm sure....


And by the way, Slovenia was no junket, the food sucked, the weather was cold and rainy and we all had hell travel because of weather (43 hours to get home, stuck in Frankfurt overnight), but some of us are trying to improve the sport in this country, not just sit on our computer and complain about it daily....


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Frank Phillips said:


> OK, I was also at the FCI meeting. what this is talking about is.....
> 
> You heel to escape setup position, you show a basic, down the dog and return to the blind.
> Before the judge signals the helper to go, the dog breaks and goes to the helper (who is standing still). If the dog bites the sleeve or the helper he is DQed. If the dog runs up tho the helper and starts to guard, the handler calls the dog back to the escape setup position, downs the dog and goes to the blind again. If the dog breaks a second time, DQed.... If the dog stays in place until the judge signals and the helper goes then you are allowed to continue protection with an appropriate deduction for the control problems.


Okay, now I see what you're saying, that makes perfect sense. I was concerned this was a new change relative to the last change where we now give a "go" command.

whew!!

Thanks Frank! Also thanks for the clarification regarding handler help.


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Christopher Smith said:


> Are you saying that unsportsmanlike conduct is a point deduction?


No, don't be rediculous....


----------



## Keith Jenkins (Jun 6, 2007)

Robert Markschlaeger followed by leading a discussion on phase B, obedience. *He stated that in our judging we must judge from the heart, not the rule book.* Mr. Markschlaeger pointed out that the judge was to be in a position to view the team throughout the entire routine. He stressed that during the free heeling exercise a very positive behavior needs to be demonstrated. Handler help needs to be taken into account during all exercises even if the dog is "up". He said heavy handler help is unsportsmanlike conduct and can not be allowed.

Now tell me how that is being consistent? Judge from the heart not the rulebook? ](*,) Very quaint but it sure isn't addressing the problem of everyone being on the same page.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Frank Phillips said:


> No, don't be rediculous....


Wheeew...Had me worried there for a minute. 8)

Can a handler be dismissed for unsportsmanlike conduct? If they can, according to the clarification that Al just released, giving heavy handler help could result in dismissal from the trial.


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Christopher Smith said:


> Wheeew...Had me worried there for a minute. 8)
> 
> Can a handler be dismissed for unsportsmanlike conduct? If they can, according to the clarification that Al just released, giving heavy handler help could result in dismissal from the trial.


They are just saying that to give crazy heavy handler help is unsportsmanlike...
and should be penalized accordingly...Not that it is unsportsmanlike conduct and dismissable....
There are many ways to be unsporting without it being a dismissable behavior....
Bringing a bitch in heat onto the field before the trial is unsportsmanlike....
wamring up your dog in protection right next to another competitors car is unsportsmanlike....
jumping in and out of the blind while the other dog is doing obedience is unsportsmanlike....

What you read from Al was a brief overview of the meeting, not a word for word explaination of everything they were saying......


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Keith Jenkins said:


> Robert Markschlaeger followed by leading a discussion on phase B, obedience. *He stated that in our judging we must judge from the heart, not the rule book.* Mr. Markschlaeger pointed out that the judge was to be in a position to view the team throughout the entire routine. He stressed that during the free heeling exercise a very positive behavior needs to be demonstrated. Handler help needs to be taken into account during all exercises even if the dog is "up". He said heavy handler help is unsportsmanlike conduct and can not be allowed.
> 
> Now tell me how that is being consistent? Judge from the heart not the rulebook? ](*,) Very quaint but it sure isn't addressing the problem of everyone being on the same page.


 
Like I said...that is a brief overview of the weekend and NOT what was actually said.....He was stating that one of the reasons for a Judge to be out showing dogs weas so that he has a heart...He never said not to follow the rule book....


----------



## Keith Jenkins (Jun 6, 2007)

Then someone needs to contact Govednik and pull that from the AWDF site if that's not a correct description/interpretation of what was stated during the meeting. 

What I quoted wasn't even close to what you just said.


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Keith Jenkins said:


> Then someone needs to contact Govednik and pull that from the AWDF site if that's not a correct description/interpretation of what was stated during the meeting.
> 
> What I quoted wasn't even close to what you just said.


I understand....he was talking about having heart in your critiques... he never said not to follow the rule book....


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Christopher Smith said:


> Standing next to the dog means just that...next to. It does not mean standing to the side of the dog. I've gone over this with several judges, trialed and got 100 points on an FH2 and know others that start their dogs from the same position that I described, like this clown right here.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0IZk1aWxyk :mrgreen:


That "clown" is a multiple time World Champion. So I'm guessing the translation of "Next to" or interpretation of "next to" isn't what you believe?


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Frank Phillips said:


> Thomas...once again you are spouting off about something you know nothing about.
> 
> Nobody was listening to 1 or 2 judges give their "personal interpretation of vague rules"...The presenters were the Judges that actually WROTE the rules. There were many discussion that included 5 of the 7 authors of the rules. So there was no personal interpretation. There was a lot of discussions on how to break down and apply weight to specific portions of each exercise. To try to get more consistant judging across the board. There was also an emphasis on systems for holding a line and staying consistant throughout a champioship..... The USCA Judges meeting was going on at the same time so I was emailing Nathaniel any clearification and he would relay to the rest of USCA judges in real time. The problem for you is you do not want the judging to get better and more consistant, then you would have nothing to bitch and complain about constantly on the internet...oh wait, you would find something I'm sure....
> 
> ...


Blah, blah, blah. Who paid for you and Al to go there?


----------

