When is enough, enough when slandering those that accept the judging responsibilities.
I recently came across an article written on prominent breeder/trainers blog page about " good judges make good trials" , but he fails to mention the other side of the coin, as most do, when promoting their own cause, and that of some of his loyal followers, and that is. when dogs don't meet don't meet the very bare minimum required to get a placement, let alone a Championship. People don't get trophies in field trials for participation. So good judges make the difficult decision that's needed, and correct much to the displeasure of most, and to some that stated " my dog ran like sh$t" made it his personal mission to blame all those involved in that correct decision.
So I would say, maybe accept some of those judging assignments when asked, and we'll see how social media treats your decisions.
And actually , the Championship he So eloquently wrote about the results should've been invalidated, per their buddy at the AFTCA. You see when all the facts are presented, the picture he painted, gets very murky, and muddy.
Re: Enough is Enough
Posted by RayG on 9/6/2023, 9:09 am, in reply to "Enough is Enough "
Enough is enough WHEN the person doing the slandering is called for it. If the presiding authority is apprised of the defamation of a judge, and they sanction the offender by barring them from competing for one season AND by requiring them to issue a public apology... it would stop. If there is no penalty for disparaging a judge publicly, it will continue.
Ray, it's truely a shame that officials of the host club get away with it, or worse yet, no one shuts it down, . You've been to a few trials, I'm guessing, would you want walk into that judicial environment? Guaranteed I won't walk a step to get bashed by a whiney , self promoting, sore loser.
When I judged a stake, it is because I was asked to by the club officials. If I agree to judge, THEY agree to accept my decisions. It is really that simple. The vast majority of judges do their very best to get it right, because that is what the sport demands of them. The vast majority of folks I judged with would absolutely not tolerate any disparagement of their decisions...nor should they have. There is no place in this sport for poor sportsmanship.
Look, NOBODY goes to a field trial to lose, but if there are ten entries, there are going to be NINE LOSERS. If you can't handle that, you should not be running dogs. Instead of complaining, maybe work a little harder and prepare a little better.
Ray, If you were judging a Championship, and no dog meet your criteria to be named winner, and maybe you have, what would your decision be? Callbacks? Revert to SD standards, Bert
Easy answer for AF sanctioned stakes. Revert to a 1,2,3. As long as the other judge agrees, of course. Honestly, I have never needed to do that, but it was almost necessary a couple of times. The best performance of the trial may not be of championship caliber and therefore, should not be awarded a CH. However it is still the best performance and deserving of a first place placement, IMO. In AKC stakes, it can be a little different because of their points system. If a performance is not worthy of championship points, the placement should, IMO, be withheld. This is actually done with some frequency by AKC judges. I recognize that physical conditions on the ground sometimes are such that a top tier performance is impossible(excessive heat, sleet/snow rain, no bird contacts,etc.), and no fault of the dogs or handlers. You do the best you can with what you have to work with.
I know that many folks out there have vastly more experience training, judging and handling dogs, and opinions may differ...but like I said earlier, if a club asked me to judge, they agree to live by my decisions.
on 9/4/2023, 11:46 am
