I recently attended a trial where I ran in a small stake and had a dog in each brace (I'm being purposely vague, although someone so inclined could probably figure out where and when).  Since I had seen all the dogs run, I was pretty certain of the placements.  I was amazed when the placements were announced, as it didn't agree with what I saw at all.

I was even more disappointed when, right after the placements, one of the judges went over to the winning handler to tell him he needed to try to keep his dog to the front.  From where I was, that was an understatement.  The winning dog spent a good third of the brace walking near the handler, and other than the first cast was never in front of me.

I had actually packed everything up and was pulling out when I decided I had to go over and ask the judge how they arrived at their decision.  It only made it worse...

According to the judge, I was a much better handler than the other guy, and kept my dog where it needed to be.  However, in their mind, the other dog would have been better than my dog if only the other handler had done a better job.  Regarding the time the dog was walking, the judge said that the dog had a sticker that the handler couldn't find for some time, so the dog didn't perform because of that.  The judge also told me that they thought the other dog finished a bit stronger than my dog (although even the last cast the other dog made was to 8 o'clock to our rear), but if they are going to consider maybe's and whatif's, I guess they should have wondered how strong my dog would have finished if she had spent much of the brace at a walk instead of running to the front for the entire time.

I realize that most of us that do this have a bunch of stories about times we should have won, but at least I've always assumed the judge was basing decisions on what actually happened.  If judges can place dogs based on what might have happened if only the handler was better or the dog hadn't shut down, at what point do we get to where we don't even have to run the brace?  How many times have you judged a dog that did a phenomal job one time, but didn't do as well the next time you saw it?  Using the logic here, I should be able to say that, while that dog did get beat today, I know that dog could have done a better job than our first place dog so I'm going to give it first.

I could also just say that, well this was only a 1 point stake, so what's the big deal.  Well, that 1 point is 10 percent of a championship.  If the judges didn't think my dog performed to that level, then withhold the placement.  But to award the point to a performance that 'coulda woulda shoulda' is unjustifiable in my mind.

Rick

Rick I've tried over the years, even when I thought the judge made a terrible call, and/or the placements made absolutely no sense, to be positive, assume they are honest and knowledgeable, but man sometimes you just can't make heads or tails of any of it.

In this particular case once i'd discussed it with you I looked the judge up to see what their history was as far as placements in the past.  Since I'd attended several trials they have judged as well as run under them I felt I had a pretty good background on them and could come to an understanding without any bias.  I did so and found that both my memory and the way they'd placed dogs in the past and solidified my understanding.

First I can say this.  I know this person and I believe they think they are honest judges.  I do feel however, however inadvertant this particular judge has a different way of judging than makes sense to me.  I think this person sees and expects certain things from different breeds and will put up a dog that's done a "lesser job" than one of a different breed because they are using different judging criteria for dogs.

Maybe it makes more sense this way.  I believe they see one set of rules defining what a performance for that breed is, another set for what is the best performance of another breed, and perhaps even a third way to evaluate a third breed.

In this scenario I believe that in their mind they are putting dogs up rather than how well they do overall in the stake, they are doing so by separating dogs into breeds and then putting  up the best dog based on what they expect from each of the breeds.

Let's say wer'e talking GSP, Britt, and Vizsla,  Well the GSP did the best of the dogs that ran but they expected more out of the GSP.  The Britt did the almost the best best it could "for a brit" and the V an outstanding V.

If this was the case then this person would put the V in first, the Britt in Second, and the GSP in third.

This is bad judging in my mind,  you take the dogs you have, the course you have, and the performances the dogs  have and without any regard to which breeds they are actually place them according to  how they performed in relation to the basic requirements for that stake.

This probably doesn't come off as clearly as it should because I'm beat.  Maybe I'll work on it tomorrow. CR