Guns Choice not placed in Field Trial

[welshboy454 3]

If you read the following link the guns choice of thr best dog was not placed in the field trial. Is this normal or can anyone explain it ? You would expect the guns choice to be their favorite dog to shoot with which is how most of us think.

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...sa%3DG%26um%3D1

[rickyspringer 15]

well logically you would think the dog would be placed, but the dog may be good from a shooters point of view but may make errors to the judges eyes...These trials are very strict and the littlest mistake is picked up on!!

 

Its a cracking website spaiels in the field, some wonderful articles on there.

[welshboy454 3]

well logically you would think the dog would be placed, but the dog may be good from a shooters point of view but may make errors to the judges eyes...These trials are very strict and the littlest mistake is picked up on!!

 

Its a cracking website spaiels in the field, some wonderful articles on there.

 

So what you are saying is that the guns choice "a shooters point of view" in the dogs performance is totally irrelevant and what matters is the judge(s) on the day opinion of some subtle difference in performance to make a FT award.

 

For me the opinion of the guns should carry some weight. After all what are we trying to prove -that the best dog for shooting over has some mystical quality that the guns cannot see ? I think that is taking the P**S

Edited August 17, 2009 by welshboy454

[rickyspringer 15]

i think its a joke also, a good working dog, is not necessarily a good trailing dog..working dogs need to use initiative on occasions, trialling dogs cant think for themselves. control is the key!!!

 

Very good subject to raise and I would love a triallers opinion on it. I do not believe there is any right or wrong with the subject but would love a good knowledgable answer on the matter.

[farmerrich 1]

The dog may have had an eliminating fault. For example squeaking when exited. It may have been unsteady in some way, slow to drop to shot or flush, creeping forward on the drop, not nessesarily faults that would bother the average shooting man but should not be rewarded by a place in a field trial.

People use field trial awards as a guide when breeding their dogs and need to trust that dogs in possesion of such awards do not suffer from certain faults or traits. Without being present at the trial in question however it is difficult to comment on this case.

 

Rich

[jessdale 416]

well logically you would think the dog would be placed, but the dog may be good from a shooters point of view but may make errors to the judges eyes...These trials are very strict and the littlest mistake is picked up on!!

 

Its a cracking website spaiels in the field, some wonderful articles on there.

 

So what you are saying is that the guns choice "a shooters point of view" in the dogs performance is totally irrelevant and what matters is the judge(s) on the day opinion of some subtle difference in performance to make a FT award.

 

For me the opinion of the guns should carry some weight. After all what are we trying to prove -that the best dog for shooting over has some mystical quality that the guns cannot see ? I think that is taking the P**S

The only opinion that matters is the one given by the judge/judges.Thats what they are there for.

[welshboy454 3]

well logically you would think the dog would be placed, but the dog may be good from a shooters point of view but may make errors to the judges eyes...These trials are very strict and the littlest mistake is picked up on!!

 

Its a cracking website spaiels in the field, some wonderful articles on there.

 

So what you are saying is that the guns choice "a shooters point of view" in the dogs performance is totally irrelevant and what matters is the judge(s) on the day opinion of some subtle difference in performance to make a FT award.

 

For me the opinion of the guns should carry some weight. After all what are we trying to prove -that the best dog for shooting over has some mystical quality that the guns cannot see ? I think that is taking the P**S

The only opinion that matters is the one given by the judge/judges.Thats what they are there for.

The judges have the power to make awards. Therefore their opinion should be without question but how is a judge appointed and what qualifications does he/she hold.

This is a Quote from Keith Erlandson from his book The Working Springer Spaniel about the appointment of judges

" there is absolutely no formal training for judges and I believe the system is seriously flawed. When a judge is recommended by a society or club for whom they have judged the kc writes to all the 'A' judges the person has officiated with for a recommendation or otherwise. What happens then is a mystery.The matter is debated behind closed doors before the kc ft sub committee . Some judges considered excellent by grass roots opinion are rejected and it seems others whose credentials are flimsy are appointed. No reasons are ever tendered in the case of a rejection."

 

In the Field Trial in the original post there were 4 awards given and 4 certificates of merit issued. So at least 8 dogs were judged better than the guns choice.

What really puzzles me is that the guns choice was already a FTCH but deemed an also ran !

Edited August 19, 2009 by welshboy454

[butcherboy 68]

The judges in a trial are giving their sole attention to the dog...............................................are the guns?

[potshot 0]

The guns choice is simply that, the guns choice. It has no relevance to the trial awards and is an opportunity to get the Guns more involved in the trial - they are paying for their part of the day. It doesn't matter what dog they give it to, whether in the awards or not, but most often they seem to give to the handler they would most like to take home.........