Agility Refusals

[Vickie]

Was just talking about this in another thread & wondered how everyone thinks the new rule is going in their state?

I am still seeing a lot of inconsistencies in judging & think the way it is interpreted is still sometimes downright unfair.

An example...same trial, same course, same judge.

Dog 1 - incurred a refusal. The run was faultless, the dog ran efficiently & forward focussed. Refusal was given when dog collected itself for the table (I think shadows were causing problems) glancing at the handler as it did. There was no stopping, it was just a very quick pause for collection, more like a break in stride, but it was more obvious IMO b/c teh rest of the run was so beautiful.

Dog 2 - ran clean. The dog spun, circled & barked at the handler the whole way through the course. It certainly wasn't moving forward as it was barking at the handler, more like bouncing up & down on the spot.

Dog 3 - ran clean (but over time). A very nervous & unmotivated dog. Trotting between jumps. At one point actually sniffed the upgright of one of the jumps before doing it, as well as a couple of ground sniffing detours.

Is this common in other states? Does anyone else think that this is inconsistent?

Edited July 25, 2007 by Vickie

[Kavik]

That doesn't seem very fair?

OK maybe I am showing very obviously that I have not gotten to compete yet, but I thought you would only get a refusal if the dog didn't take the obstacle, or took the wrong obstacle etc?

[poodlefan]

Yep, Vickie I do think it's that inconsistent and the reason for it is that judges don't have a common understanding of what a "refusal" is.

I think it varies a little depending on the obstacle but a complete halt in front of a jump is a no brainer.

[leopuppy04]

yep - sounds pretty inconsistent to me.

Depends how close the dog when he got the refusal was though.

I think it is pretty silly to cop a refusal coz the dog 'glances' at you though!

[Rom]

Wow...thats tough!

Is this ANKC agility that the new refusal rules apply to?

ETA: I meant tough as in harsh rule, not grin and bear it :rolleyes:

Edited July 25, 2007 by Rom

[Vickie]

Yep, Vickie I do think it's that inconsistent and the reason for it is that judges don't have a common understanding of what a "refusal" is.

Yes, I think that's a big part of it. I'm still not happy with how the rule is written though and I do think that it's unfair that dogs who technically perform refusals b/c of the way they run should be penalised in the same manner as those who run efficiently.

The worst one I ever had was where I was given a refusal for an RFP where I actually asked the dog to look at me to change her line for the next few obstacles. It was a great run & otherwise clean. It's the only time I have ever felt the need to question a judge & the only time I have ever come out of the ring angry.

[poodlefan]

I've had one refusal called because my signal was unclear and Booga went towards one jump and then corrected himself.

I didn't think it was fair because he hadn't refused anything.. he changed his path towards the correct obstacle.

But because I'm such a sportswoman, I didnt't snot the judge either Vickie.. aren't we lovely. :rolleyes:

And yes Rom, this is ANKC agility.

Edited July 25, 2007 by poodlefan

[helen]

I think it is the worst rule ever introduced and hope it might disappear in the next rule change. I have also seen a beautiful run with one quick glance to the owner being faulted and a dog that is known to have troubles with spinning being allowed to get away with it. I don't understand why either should be faulted and can't understand the rule.

The worst refusual I have had is at the last obstacle, a jump. I lost my bearings and wasn't sure if Bella was heading in the right direction. I told her to stop and she did, right in front of the jump without turning around, when I worked out it was the right jump I told her to go over it but was faulted.

Edited July 25, 2007 by helen

[kelpiechick]

I also think it's a ridiculous rule with way too much 'grey' in the interpretation.

Hasn't affected me but I have a friend who was called for a refusal on a lovely jumping run after his dog head checked back with him before taking a jump - handler was waiting for a cruciate operation and couldn't run so was working the dog from a distance. That was the only fault.

I also think it has potential for unsafe handling - if my dog was heading for the dogwalk (or the table) on a wet day at speed I would probably want to use RFP to check stride before letting him take that obstacle.

Not the only rule change I don't like tho' - I also don't like the slats being removed on dogwalk, way too hard for dog to differentiate between seesaw now, especially for a fast dog.

[Vickie]

Well it looks like I'm not alone & the problem is not confined to NSW. Although I have a problem with the rule itself...my biggest problem is when the same judge interprets it differently on the same course.

[Tassie]

Yep - not just you, Vickie - and not just NSW. I think they might be getting past the RFP problem - or I hope so - I haven't seen one called. Hopefully the refusal rule will be addressed in rules review meetings - it's certainly a grey area.

[BittyMooPeeb]

I havent competed yet, but have timed etc at trials, and I though a refusal was where the dog missed the obstacle and ran past it. If pausing is a refusal, or veering the wrong way but still making the obstacle is a refusal, then I will be in trouble

Can someone pls post a link to where I can find the rules for jumping and agility. Bout time I read them

[Vickie]

Current Agility Rules

You will find that most judges will be more lenient in Novice BMP.

The rules state that stopping in front of an obstacle is a refusal. I guess it comes down to how/whether the judge differentiates a stop & a pause.

[Rom]

9.15 Refusal of an obstacle.

It is the Judges decision as to when a refusal to take an obstacle has occurred and the Judge will immediately advise the Handler by calling 'Refusal'. The obstacle must be re-attempted.

A refusal should be called when the dog fails to make an attempt (out of disobedience or reluctance)at an obstacle or when approaching:

a) An obstacle, turns (direction of travel) away or stops (unless under direction of the handler) in front of the obstacle it should be negotiating.

If I were judging, this is how I would interpret the rule

It seems a problem of a pedantic interpretation of the rule, rather than a problem with the rule itself. Perhaps some Judges need to ask themselves "What is the primary intention of the dog?" before they make the call.