Agility Liaison Council February 14th meeting
Wales! Tell me your views!
The agenda items are as follows - they are widely publicised on the KC and other sites.
I would welcome any comment either directly or emailed to me, please be sure to identify yourself and your club:
I am trying to arrange a meeting on a Saturday before the 14th February to discuss these items and any comments received. The meeting will also be an opportunity to raise other issues to table for the July meeting.
a. Regulation Changes
The Council is invited to note that, at its meeting on 10 October 2006, the General Committee approved the amendments to the following Regulations with effect from 1 January 2007.
(1) Regulation K.3.c. – Agility Warrant
(2) Regulation H(1)(A).7.d. – Championship Running Orders
(3) Regulation H(1)(B).4. – Measuring of Dogs.
(4) Regulation H(1)(B).1.a(2)(iv) – Championship Agility Courses
b. Kennel Club International Agility Festival
A verbal report will be given on the progress of the Kennel Club International Agility Festival.
c. Wishing Well Measurements
The Council is invited to discuss its views on the wishing well, following a prototype being made and displayed at the Kennel Club International Agility Festival.
d. Measuring of Agility Dogs
The Council is invited to note that, at its meeting on 10 October 2006, the General Committee agreed that a Working Party should be created to review the measuring process; this will begin during 2007. However, with immediate effect, the official measurers could have discretion to allow dogs that, in their opinion, were obviously over 430 mm prior to reaching 15 months of age to be measured. Also, that if, in the two measurers’ opinions, a dog was obviously over 430 mm, the requirement for a second measurement could be struck out of the Agility Record Book and signed by the measurers. These concessions would only apply to new dogs that are being measured, not dogs that have already had their first measurement.
ITEM 7. PROPOSALS FROM SOCIETIES/PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS
a. Mr R White Mr D Ray
Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1)(B).5.a.(6)
FROM:
Hurdle/Wall – a dog should not be faulted if any part of the obstacle is touched and does not fall.
TO:
Hurdle/Wall – a dog should not be faulted if any part of the obstacle is touched and does not fall. A dog is considered to have refused the obstacle if the dog stops, or turns away, when in a position to jump the obstacle. A dog is considered to have refused a hurdle if it runs under the bar, jumps the wing, or runs past the line of the wings.
(Amendment underlined)
This proposal has been put forward to clarify the definition of a refusal. The hurdle (jump) is the most common piece of equipment in any course and yet there is virtually no guidance on how a refusal at this particular obstacle should be marked. This gives rise to a wide variation in marking. For example, refusals are recorded sometimes if a dog turns to its handler between jumps, or runs wide, or pauses to sniff. Not every case of a dog jumping a wing is recorded as a refusal.
RATIONALE:
1. The most common refusal is at the weaves entry. This is clearly covered in the Regulations: "Weaving Poles - The Dog to enter the weaving poles with the first pole adjacent to its left side. Each incorrect entry to be classed as a refusal"
2. Much rarer refusals are also specifically covered:
2.1 "See-Saw… A dog is considered to have refused the obstacle if it alights before the pivot point."
2.2 "Long Jump… However, running past, jumping in and out to the side or the marker poles, or walking on or between the elements where no attempt has been made to clear the obstacle will be faulted as a refusal…."
2.3 "A Ramp - A dog is considered to have refused the obstacle if it alights before the down ramp."
2.4 "Dog Walk - A dog is considered to have refused the obstacle if it alights before the down plank."
3. However, the guidance on the most common piece of equipment (which, unlike the contact equipment will be included in every class) is virtually non-existent. There is a hint that the dog should not jump the wings and this can be found in 2 places:
3.1 Regulation H(1).9b states: "…where wings or side supports are part of an obstacle they must be appreciably higher than the part to be cleared by the dog."
3.2 Regulation (H)(1)(B).1.a3 surprisingly repeats this: "where "Wings" or side supports are part of an obstacle they must be appreciably higher than the part to be cleared by the dog."
4. However, this is the only hint as to how the most common obstacle should be marked. This seems illogical.
5. The suggested wording of the amendment is taken from The Kennel Club Judge’s Guide to Agility Equipment, but slightly amended to allow for the fact that the current Regulation brackets the wall and the hurdle together. It is submitted that such a basic piece of guidance should be made available to all competitors and trainers, not just the Judges who sit the Kennel Club Judging exam.
6. The FCI has a different approach to the situation. It separates faults and refusals generally, but the rule which is available to all is quite clear:
"Refusals:
Will be faulted with a refusal: a dog that stops in front of an obstacle or a dog that stops on the course. A dog that runs out or runs by an obstacle, jumps between the tyre and the frame or walks through the long jump. A dog that puts its head or a paw in a tunnel and comes back out again. Refusals must be corrected, failure to do so will result in elimination."
7. Some will doubtless argue that Kennel Club Regulations should be minimal. That is not disputed, however, clarity must not be sacrificed in the interests of mere brevity. If the Agility Liaison Council shares this concern then it is suggested that the duplication referred to above in Paragraph 3 should be deleted
8. Some will also doubtless argue that the Kennel Club has embarked on a vast training programme of Judges which will ensure consistency. However, despite the excellence of that programme it is surely wrong that such a fundamental item should not be readily available to all participants in our sport.
b. Mrs G Hanekom Mr T Griffin
Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1)(B)1.c
FROM:
No practice is allowed on the course save that the competitors will be allowed to walk the course set at the height the dog is to negotiate, without their dog(s) before the class begins.
TO:
No practice is allowed on the course save that the competitors will be allowed to walk the course set at the height the dog is to negotiate, without their dog(s) before the class begins. The competitor may however opt to run the course ‘NFC’ (Not For Competition) assuming the Scrime/ Timekeeper and Judge are advised before the dog commences. The competitor will only be allotted, on the course, the Judges’ standard course time after which the Scrime/ Timekeeper will signal "Time" and the competitor must leave promptly. If running ‘NFC’ inaudible toys are permitted to be taken into the ring as a training aid but no food is allowed.
(Amendment underlined)
This proposal has been put forward as Mrs Hanekom believes that ‘training in the ring’ has become more frequent. Many people, some very new to agility, have been upset by a judge who deems them to be ‘training’ and has thrown them out. There seems to be a lot of views on the internet forums, discussing this issue. Mrs Hanekom feels that if the Council implements this change to the Regulation then it would be made easier for judges and competitors to ‘manage’ training in the ring. It would also allow handlers to keep the consistency in the ring that they have created in training. Mrs Hanekom believes this proposal would help produce more consistent and top quality dogs for this country.
c. Mr G Partridge Mr T Griffin
Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1)10.e
FROM:
Food shall not be carried in the hand or given to a dog in the ring.
TO:
Except with the express permission of the Judge nothing shall be carried in the hand and food shall not be given to a dog whilst in the ring.
(Amendment underlined)
This proposal has been put forward to remove the anomaly that a toy could be carried in the hand as the existing Regulation only specifies food shall not be carried. The reason for the preface "except with the express permission of the Judge" would allow a person to carry crutches whilst in the ring.
d. Mr G Partridge Mr T Griffin
Proposed Addition of Regulation H(1)(B).5.a.(19)
TO:
A handler may not go over, under or through any piece of equipment - Elimination.
This proposal has been submitted as there are no other recognised sports or activities, which are regulated by "custom and practice" and although it is appreciated that every eventuality cannot be regulated, legislation for the very basics should be provided. This would then provide some protection to Judges and Show organisers in relation to Health and Safety.
ITEM 8. DISCUSSION ITEMS
a. Agility specimen schedule Mr D Ray
Mr Ray, on behalf of Mrs S Walmsley, has requested the Council to discuss whether all agility schedules should include all the Kennel Club Rules and Regulations, as Mrs Walmsley believes this amounts to an incredible waste of paper.
Mrs Walmsley predicts that if there are about 3000 competitors in the country and each one attends approximately 28 shows a year, each receiving a similar number of schedules, then this would amount to nearly 90,000 sheets of paper. Mrs Walmsley understands that every competitor should be made aware of, and have access to the Rules and Regulations, however she would like the Council to consider the following:
(1) Every new registration of a dog should be accompanied with the basic Rules and Regulations from the Kennel Club.
(2) All schedules should include the wording: "All Regulations as specified by the Kennel Club plus the following….(as pertinent to the specific show), this would replace the page that included all the Regulations.
(3) All clubs should display a full copy of the Regulations on their notice board.
b. International Mixed & Breed Championships for Agility Mr D Ray
Mr Ray, on behalf of Mrs J Douglas, has requested the Council discusses whether the Kennel Club would be prepared to support a team to compete at the IMCA Championships. Mrs Douglas understands that this may cost a great deal of money, however she suggests that the agility community may be able to raise half of the funds needed, if the Kennel Club could match it. Mrs Douglas has suggested the following reasons why she believes this would benefit the Kennel Club and agility enthusiasts:
(1) This is in line with the Kennel Club mission statement.
(2) It is an ideal time to promote the Kennel Club International Agility Festival, as the team could deliver schedules and details.
(3) The agility community would support it and help as much as it can.
ITEM 9. JUDGES WORKING PARTY (WTOA)
a. Mr Griffin will give a verbal report on the progress of the Judges Working Party.
b. Mr Griffin will present a proposal from the Judges Working Party to discuss whether a new level of Accredited Judge (or other suitable name) should be created if a judge was successfully assessed on two occasions. This would then allow them to judge qualifiers, or allow them to wear a specific badge.
ITEM 10. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The date of the next meeting will be Wednesday 11 July 2007, items for the agenda should reach the office by Thursday 12 April 2007.
ITEM 11. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Wales! Tell me your views!
The agenda items are as follows - they are widely publicised on the KC and other sites.
I would welcome any comment either directly or emailed to me, please be sure to identify yourself and your club:
I am trying to arrange a meeting on a Saturday before the 14th February to discuss these items and any comments received. The meeting will also be an opportunity to raise other issues to table for the July meeting.
a. Regulation Changes
The Council is invited to note that, at its meeting on 10 October 2006, the General Committee approved the amendments to the following Regulations with effect from 1 January 2007.
(1) Regulation K.3.c. – Agility Warrant
(2) Regulation H(1)(A).7.d. – Championship Running Orders
(3) Regulation H(1)(B).4. – Measuring of Dogs.
(4) Regulation H(1)(B).1.a(2)(iv) – Championship Agility Courses
b. Kennel Club International Agility Festival
A verbal report will be given on the progress of the Kennel Club International Agility Festival.
c. Wishing Well Measurements
The Council is invited to discuss its views on the wishing well, following a prototype being made and displayed at the Kennel Club International Agility Festival.
d. Measuring of Agility Dogs
The Council is invited to note that, at its meeting on 10 October 2006, the General Committee agreed that a Working Party should be created to review the measuring process; this will begin during 2007. However, with immediate effect, the official measurers could have discretion to allow dogs that, in their opinion, were obviously over 430 mm prior to reaching 15 months of age to be measured. Also, that if, in the two measurers’ opinions, a dog was obviously over 430 mm, the requirement for a second measurement could be struck out of the Agility Record Book and signed by the measurers. These concessions would only apply to new dogs that are being measured, not dogs that have already had their first measurement.
ITEM 7. PROPOSALS FROM SOCIETIES/PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS
a. Mr R White Mr D Ray
Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1)(B).5.a.(6)
FROM:
Hurdle/Wall – a dog should not be faulted if any part of the obstacle is touched and does not fall.
TO:
Hurdle/Wall – a dog should not be faulted if any part of the obstacle is touched and does not fall. A dog is considered to have refused the obstacle if the dog stops, or turns away, when in a position to jump the obstacle. A dog is considered to have refused a hurdle if it runs under the bar, jumps the wing, or runs past the line of the wings.
(Amendment underlined)
This proposal has been put forward to clarify the definition of a refusal. The hurdle (jump) is the most common piece of equipment in any course and yet there is virtually no guidance on how a refusal at this particular obstacle should be marked. This gives rise to a wide variation in marking. For example, refusals are recorded sometimes if a dog turns to its handler between jumps, or runs wide, or pauses to sniff. Not every case of a dog jumping a wing is recorded as a refusal.
RATIONALE:
1. The most common refusal is at the weaves entry. This is clearly covered in the Regulations: "Weaving Poles - The Dog to enter the weaving poles with the first pole adjacent to its left side. Each incorrect entry to be classed as a refusal"
2. Much rarer refusals are also specifically covered:
2.1 "See-Saw… A dog is considered to have refused the obstacle if it alights before the pivot point."
2.2 "Long Jump… However, running past, jumping in and out to the side or the marker poles, or walking on or between the elements where no attempt has been made to clear the obstacle will be faulted as a refusal…."
2.3 "A Ramp - A dog is considered to have refused the obstacle if it alights before the down ramp."
2.4 "Dog Walk - A dog is considered to have refused the obstacle if it alights before the down plank."
3. However, the guidance on the most common piece of equipment (which, unlike the contact equipment will be included in every class) is virtually non-existent. There is a hint that the dog should not jump the wings and this can be found in 2 places:
3.1 Regulation H(1).9b states: "…where wings or side supports are part of an obstacle they must be appreciably higher than the part to be cleared by the dog."
3.2 Regulation (H)(1)(B).1.a3 surprisingly repeats this: "where "Wings" or side supports are part of an obstacle they must be appreciably higher than the part to be cleared by the dog."
4. However, this is the only hint as to how the most common obstacle should be marked. This seems illogical.
5. The suggested wording of the amendment is taken from The Kennel Club Judge’s Guide to Agility Equipment, but slightly amended to allow for the fact that the current Regulation brackets the wall and the hurdle together. It is submitted that such a basic piece of guidance should be made available to all competitors and trainers, not just the Judges who sit the Kennel Club Judging exam.
6. The FCI has a different approach to the situation. It separates faults and refusals generally, but the rule which is available to all is quite clear:
"Refusals:
Will be faulted with a refusal: a dog that stops in front of an obstacle or a dog that stops on the course. A dog that runs out or runs by an obstacle, jumps between the tyre and the frame or walks through the long jump. A dog that puts its head or a paw in a tunnel and comes back out again. Refusals must be corrected, failure to do so will result in elimination."
7. Some will doubtless argue that Kennel Club Regulations should be minimal. That is not disputed, however, clarity must not be sacrificed in the interests of mere brevity. If the Agility Liaison Council shares this concern then it is suggested that the duplication referred to above in Paragraph 3 should be deleted
8. Some will also doubtless argue that the Kennel Club has embarked on a vast training programme of Judges which will ensure consistency. However, despite the excellence of that programme it is surely wrong that such a fundamental item should not be readily available to all participants in our sport.
b. Mrs G Hanekom Mr T Griffin
Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1)(B)1.c
FROM:
No practice is allowed on the course save that the competitors will be allowed to walk the course set at the height the dog is to negotiate, without their dog(s) before the class begins.
TO:
No practice is allowed on the course save that the competitors will be allowed to walk the course set at the height the dog is to negotiate, without their dog(s) before the class begins. The competitor may however opt to run the course ‘NFC’ (Not For Competition) assuming the Scrime/ Timekeeper and Judge are advised before the dog commences. The competitor will only be allotted, on the course, the Judges’ standard course time after which the Scrime/ Timekeeper will signal "Time" and the competitor must leave promptly. If running ‘NFC’ inaudible toys are permitted to be taken into the ring as a training aid but no food is allowed.
(Amendment underlined)
This proposal has been put forward as Mrs Hanekom believes that ‘training in the ring’ has become more frequent. Many people, some very new to agility, have been upset by a judge who deems them to be ‘training’ and has thrown them out. There seems to be a lot of views on the internet forums, discussing this issue. Mrs Hanekom feels that if the Council implements this change to the Regulation then it would be made easier for judges and competitors to ‘manage’ training in the ring. It would also allow handlers to keep the consistency in the ring that they have created in training. Mrs Hanekom believes this proposal would help produce more consistent and top quality dogs for this country.
c. Mr G Partridge Mr T Griffin
Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1)10.e
FROM:
Food shall not be carried in the hand or given to a dog in the ring.
TO:
Except with the express permission of the Judge nothing shall be carried in the hand and food shall not be given to a dog whilst in the ring.
(Amendment underlined)
This proposal has been put forward to remove the anomaly that a toy could be carried in the hand as the existing Regulation only specifies food shall not be carried. The reason for the preface "except with the express permission of the Judge" would allow a person to carry crutches whilst in the ring.
d. Mr G Partridge Mr T Griffin
Proposed Addition of Regulation H(1)(B).5.a.(19)
TO:
A handler may not go over, under or through any piece of equipment - Elimination.
This proposal has been submitted as there are no other recognised sports or activities, which are regulated by "custom and practice" and although it is appreciated that every eventuality cannot be regulated, legislation for the very basics should be provided. This would then provide some protection to Judges and Show organisers in relation to Health and Safety.
ITEM 8. DISCUSSION ITEMS
a. Agility specimen schedule Mr D Ray
Mr Ray, on behalf of Mrs S Walmsley, has requested the Council to discuss whether all agility schedules should include all the Kennel Club Rules and Regulations, as Mrs Walmsley believes this amounts to an incredible waste of paper.
Mrs Walmsley predicts that if there are about 3000 competitors in the country and each one attends approximately 28 shows a year, each receiving a similar number of schedules, then this would amount to nearly 90,000 sheets of paper. Mrs Walmsley understands that every competitor should be made aware of, and have access to the Rules and Regulations, however she would like the Council to consider the following:
(1) Every new registration of a dog should be accompanied with the basic Rules and Regulations from the Kennel Club.
(2) All schedules should include the wording: "All Regulations as specified by the Kennel Club plus the following….(as pertinent to the specific show), this would replace the page that included all the Regulations.
(3) All clubs should display a full copy of the Regulations on their notice board.
b. International Mixed & Breed Championships for Agility Mr D Ray
Mr Ray, on behalf of Mrs J Douglas, has requested the Council discusses whether the Kennel Club would be prepared to support a team to compete at the IMCA Championships. Mrs Douglas understands that this may cost a great deal of money, however she suggests that the agility community may be able to raise half of the funds needed, if the Kennel Club could match it. Mrs Douglas has suggested the following reasons why she believes this would benefit the Kennel Club and agility enthusiasts:
(1) This is in line with the Kennel Club mission statement.
(2) It is an ideal time to promote the Kennel Club International Agility Festival, as the team could deliver schedules and details.
(3) The agility community would support it and help as much as it can.
ITEM 9. JUDGES WORKING PARTY (WTOA)
a. Mr Griffin will give a verbal report on the progress of the Judges Working Party.
b. Mr Griffin will present a proposal from the Judges Working Party to discuss whether a new level of Accredited Judge (or other suitable name) should be created if a judge was successfully assessed on two occasions. This would then allow them to judge qualifiers, or allow them to wear a specific badge.
ITEM 10. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The date of the next meeting will be Wednesday 11 July 2007, items for the agenda should reach the office by Thursday 12 April 2007.
ITEM 11. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
posted by TIGGER at 2:51 PM
2 Comments:
Hello Mike
thank you for making a discussion medium available to the area.
I would like to comment on a few of the proposed issues that are being discussed on the agenda.
b/ ref training in the ring:
In principle my view is that this is a useful proposal which sets out to try to formalise what in many cases already happends in the ring albeit with handlers never really clear if they can 'put a dog back on a contact' and leave the ring...etc
I feel that such a proposal would in principle provide a valuable opportunity for people to declare a training round (before they go in) and positively reinforce what they want to achieve. However, in practice I can see the proposal presenting many issues about how this would actually be managed...nonetheless these I am sure with careful wording and consideration be worked out to provide this opportunity for handlers to utilise their run if they so wish to reinforce contacts or build confidence etc.
KC festival
Mike you have asked for views on the festival in your letter to clubs...
Stuart and I visited the festival last year, and enjoyed the experience very much. We felt that the Sunday team performances were somewhat chaotic and because this was all going on in the middle of the show, it must have been a total nightmare to organise! I know that people in out team hadnt walked courses and I didnt actually know i was to run in a large team until the announcement was made that i was required ringside...so the worth of the competition was diluted somewhat.
Without being negative, as the experience on the whole was an excellent one, was that there was just too much going on for a two day show and that if the festival was to continue to work along the same schedule, it would make for a more relaxed experience to schedule the event over 3 days instead of two and to show case the finals and team events a little more in the main ring rather than having them running during a very busy show.
It would be great to attract more international visitors to the event and the creation of a more prestiegous home nations and international team event may help to attract people to make the journey over?
item 8b
. International Mixed & Breed Championships for Agility Mr D Ray
Mr Ray, on behalf of Mrs J Douglas, has requested the Council discusses whether the Kennel Club would be prepared to support a team to compete at the IMCA Championships. Mrs Douglas understands that this may cost a great deal of money, however she suggests that the agility community may be able to raise half of the funds needed, if the Kennel Club could match it. Mrs Douglas has suggested the following reasons why she believes this would benefit the Kennel Club and agility enthusiasts:
(1) This is in line with the Kennel Club mission statement.
(2) It is an ideal time to promote the Kennel Club International Agility Festival, as the team could deliver schedules and details.
(3) The agility community would support it and help as much as it can.
i am aware that this issue has been raised previously. Many people in agility (myself included) feel very strongly about the exclusion of non papered dogs from the world championships especially as the kennel Club now financially support a team to attend.
The spirit of british agility is the inclusion of all dogs thus competition bening open to all...and this I believe the Kennel Club wholeheartedly supports.
Whilest I certainly wouldnt want to take anything away from our FCI team who represent us, It seems to me that by only supporting a pedigree only international event that this somewhat weakens the stance we have taken with regards to the inclusion of all dogs?
The non papered dogs debate has gone on and on....and seemingly doesnt seem to have made any in roads at all. There was a paper some years ago which Peter Lewis kick started which was about the recognition of the WSD...I have tried in vain to find out what has happened to this proposal?? It wasnt ideal, but would have certainly enabled some of our talented non pedigrees to have been able to compete on a level playing field? I would be very keen for us to receive a formal update on this issue and if this has now in fact been shelved, then perhaps it is time for us to consider a merit scheme that the KC supports to somehow enable all our top dogs to be included in selection and not just those with papers?
This is a very emotive issue and one which is divisive and causes significant problems within the agility community. Those who do represent their country feel aggrieved that people dont think they are the best of the best perhaps because elidgibility for selection is based on pedigree and not performance... whereas those who cannot 'try out' feel excluded and like any form of segregation...this is divisive and not in the spirit of what the sport is about!
Many participating countries have a process whereby a non papered dog is given a 'pass' by a breed judge which is specific for agility trials....this I believe has even resulted in a X bred (poodle X rescue dog) coming second in the worlds!
The adoption of such a scheme in the UK would not be difficult and would surely go a long way to readressing the balance of participation?
Imca is I believe a growing tournament and perhaps our support of this competition would once again send a message about how the UK feel about inclusive competition and allow all of our top dogs (if they so wish) to try out to represent their country.
Ann Harmes
member of Wrexham Dog Agility and St Davids DTC
Hello,
I pretty much agree with Ann.
If issues around the wording of the regulations can be resolved, I'd like to see training in the ring legitimised. Even if NFC runs aren't endorsed, I'd like some clarification on what is and what isn't allowing with regard to practicing in the ring.
Also, if it's possible I think the KC should officially back UK entrants to the IMCA Champs as it would be an important statement of support for the principle of allowing non-pedigree dogs to compete in non-breed-specific events.
Thanks,
Dan Rees
Post a Comment
<< Home