The Naming Of Judges

[klink]

Like DarwinRoyal said, we only have very small shows up here and they are few and far between. We don't have the luxury of the picking and choosing which shows we attend. Sometimes we only get 1 show a month so for me I enter all shows up here unless there is something wrong with my dogs. Like many other people have said the grooming time and effort which goes into some breeds, i have Cavaliers so it takes alot to get them ready We had a judge a little while ago that wasn't particular great but I will show again underneath them, IMO these judges only push you to become a better handler. I am a fairly new exhibitor so any show that I can enter gives me more experience and at the end of the day we should be showing because we enjoy it and the dogs love not just to win. The dogs that consistently win are obviously worthy of it, if they are being put up show after show by different judges then what does that tell you!!

When I posted this idea it was to generate discussion and it has,it has never been my aim to disadvantage any clubs and I am aware that some areas' are already disadvantaged to some degree ,purely by their location. We have all had our fair share of judges that we would not wish to revisit and I understand the problem and as you commented, bad judging can also give you the personal motivation to further achieve.Grooming certain breeds can be a very hard and long process and finally to arrive and be badly judged is sadly all part of the process that we have to accept.I agree with your comment re the quality of the consistent winning dogs' and the idea was born from the regular results in our journal showing a lot of these quality dogs' being carted about the countryside blatantly following a particular judge. If the dog is so good and some are. why not show against the best competition.

[Oleala Boxers]

I haven't read all of the responses so don't know if anyone has already raised this or not...............As an exhibitor from the ACT it is very common for us to have a choice of shows to attend on each & every weekend. I for one would not like the idea of mystery judges as it would take away a huge amount of that choice that I now enjoy ie. why would I attend a show that was 4 hours away if there's one in Canberra?? Plus it would also take away a lot of exhibitors from country shows, therefore making it much more difficult for those clubs to continue to be viable. People will travel extra distances for a judge that they believe that they might do well under or even to avoid a judge that they know that they won't win under.

I believe this idea would actually be extremely detrimental to the show world as it would push more & more people out of the hobby. Not naming a judge won't make them any less facey or any more honest, it justs takes away an exhibitors ability to make a decision based on who the judge is. Take away that decision & people will just give up entirely.

I agree that there is a lot of face judging, I just don't agree that this is a viable solution.

[Jumabaar]

Like DarwinRoyal said, we only have very small shows up here and they are few and far between. We don't have the luxury of the picking and choosing which shows we attend. Sometimes we only get 1 show a month so for me I enter all shows up here unless there is something wrong with my dogs. Like many other people have said the grooming time and effort which goes into some breeds, i have Cavaliers so it takes alot to get them ready We had a judge a little while ago that wasn't particular great but I will show again underneath them, IMO these judges only push you to become a better handler. I am a fairly new exhibitor so any show that I can enter gives me more experience and at the end of the day we should be showing because we enjoy it and the dogs love not just to win. The dogs that consistently win are obviously worthy of it, if they are being put up show after show by different judges then what does that tell you!!

When I posted this idea it was to generate discussion and it has,it has never been my aim to disadvantage any clubs and I am aware that some areas' are already disadvantaged to some degree ,purely by their location. We have all had our fair share of judges that we would not wish to revisit and I understand the problem and as you commented, bad judging can also give you the personal motivation to further achieve.Grooming certain breeds can be a very hard and long process and finally to arrive and be badly judged is sadly all part of the process that we have to accept.I agree with your comment re the quality of the consistent winning dogs' and the idea was born from the regular results in our journal showing a lot of these quality dogs' being carted about the countryside blatantly following a particular judge. If the dog is so good and some are. why not show against the best competition.

Why do we have to accept it? The only way I know of to get rid of bad judges is to not enter under them. I figure if they keep getting low entires show secs will realise using them is not doing their club any favours money wise. By taking away my right to not enter judges, I am losing my form of protesting against them!!

Note- this may not mean they are a face judge, but a judge that handles exhibits roughly for example.

IMO bad judging is bad judging. It doesnt motivate me, it makes me avoid the judge!!

[klink]

Like DarwinRoyal said, we only have very small shows up here and they are few and far between. We don't have the luxury of the picking and choosing which shows we attend. Sometimes we only get 1 show a month so for me I enter all shows up here unless there is something wrong with my dogs. Like many other people have said the grooming time and effort which goes into some breeds, i have Cavaliers so it takes alot to get them ready We had a judge a little while ago that wasn't particular great but I will show again underneath them, IMO these judges only push you to become a better handler. I am a fairly new exhibitor so any show that I can enter gives me more experience and at the end of the day we should be showing because we enjoy it and the dogs love not just to win. The dogs that consistently win are obviously worthy of it, if they are being put up show after show by different judges then what does that tell you!!

When I posted this idea it was to generate discussion and it has,it has never been my aim to disadvantage any clubs and I am aware that some areas' are already disadvantaged to some degree ,purely by their location. We have all had our fair share of judges that we would not wish to revisit and I understand the problem and as you commented, bad judging can also give you the personal motivation to further achieve.Grooming certain breeds can be a very hard and long process and finally to arrive and be badly judged is sadly all part of the process that we have to accept.I agree with your comment re the quality of the consistent winning dogs' and the idea was born from the regular results in our journal showing a lot of these quality dogs' being carted about the countryside blatantly following a particular judge. If the dog is so good and some are. why not show against the best competition.

Why do we have to accept it? The only way I know of to get rid of bad judges is to not enter under them. I figure if they keep getting low entires show secs will realise using them is not doing their club any favours money wise. By taking away my right to not enter judges, I am losing my form of protesting against them!!

Note- this may not mean they are a face judge, but a judge that handles exhibits roughly for example.

IMO bad judging is bad judging. It doesnt motivate me, it makes me avoid the judge!!

If you do not know who is judging, dont ' you think that may go some way to prevent "those faces " following judges? all over the country.By simply not showing again under a bad judge does' nothing to halt 'face judging ' simply neither the club or the judge would know that you were displeased, because another exhibitor simply takes your place, and so it goes' on.

[-Megz-]

There seems to be quite a few members coming up with all the usual reasons for not liking the idea of the non naming of judges in the show notices, and i understand some of the objections,however if we all go along the same path as we are the show scene will continue to lose numbers.As mentioned previously, clubs can if they wish name the panel of judges attending their show ,BUT no allocation of groups will be done until the introduction at the opening of the show ,at which time all would be apparent (to both exhibitors and judges at the same time ) In answer to one comment whether I am a judge or not has no bearing whatsoever on this subject.

I have read some posts here and can summarise my point of view.

1. Dog owned/bred/handled by judge = waste of my time/money

2. Personal friend of judge = waste of my time/money

3. Previous less than ideal experience with judge = waste of my time/money

4. The show world can't keep a secret anyway so why not just put it on the schedule

I like an example that my mum uses to explain dog shows to those on/thinking of joining the committees. The schedule is one part of a contract, you are telling the exhibitors that they can enter for this day at this time at this place in these classes with this judge. The exhibitor confirms that contract by entering a show. Taking that information away from an exhibitor is like saying to a new car buyer, here sign here and I'll let you know what car you are purchasing later. It is essential information to know if I want to buy that Jeep or if I thought I was getting a BMW.

Klink - can you explain the scenario were NOT naming the judge will enhance the showing experience? I understand you think it will improve numbers, and whilst the majority haven't agreed, I assume this isn't the only reason to hang your hat on this suggestion?

[-Megz-]

Like DarwinRoyal said, we only have very small shows up here and they are few and far between. We don't have the luxury of the picking and choosing which shows we attend. Sometimes we only get 1 show a month so for me I enter all shows up here unless there is something wrong with my dogs. Like many other people have said the grooming time and effort which goes into some breeds, i have Cavaliers so it takes alot to get them ready We had a judge a little while ago that wasn't particular great but I will show again underneath them, IMO these judges only push you to become a better handler. I am a fairly new exhibitor so any show that I can enter gives me more experience and at the end of the day we should be showing because we enjoy it and the dogs love not just to win. The dogs that consistently win are obviously worthy of it, if they are being put up show after show by different judges then what does that tell you!!

When I posted this idea it was to generate discussion and it has,it has never been my aim to disadvantage any clubs and I am aware that some areas' are already disadvantaged to some degree ,purely by their location. We have all had our fair share of judges that we would not wish to revisit and I understand the problem and as you commented, bad judging can also give you the personal motivation to further achieve.Grooming certain breeds can be a very hard and long process and finally to arrive and be badly judged is sadly all part of the process that we have to accept.I agree with your comment re the quality of the consistent winning dogs' and the idea was born from the regular results in our journal showing a lot of these quality dogs' being carted about the countryside blatantly following a particular judge. If the dog is so good and some are. why not show against the best competition.

Why do we have to accept it? The only way I know of to get rid of bad judges is to not enter under them. I figure if they keep getting low entires show secs will realise using them is not doing their club any favours money wise. By taking away my right to not enter judges, I am losing my form of protesting against them!!

Note- this may not mean they are a face judge, but a judge that handles exhibits roughly for example.

IMO bad judging is bad judging. It doesnt motivate me, it makes me avoid the judge!!

If you do not know who is judging, dont ' you think that may go some way to prevent "those faces " following judges? all over the country.By simply not showing again under a bad judge does' nothing to halt 'face judging ' simply neither the club or the judge would know that you were displeased, because another exhibitor simply takes your place, and so it goes' on.

I don't think it will prevent the cheats. The problem I see with these kind of scenarios is that they only seem to effect the honest people in any sport. You change the rules to prevent cheaters and the cheaters find another way. IMO

[darwinroyal]

Dog Showing – the Corporate Model

1. The Judge is contracted to an event. The organisers provide details of what will be provided. The judge completes their section. 14 days elapse and all is good. There is a ‘deal’. The biggie here is make sure you load up the judge with lots of jobs. You can take things away, but you cannot add to the contract. **

2. The Schedule is the contract with exhibitors – the when, the where, with whom, what classes, trophies, provisos. The biggie here is that you must deliver what is promised. You can add extras, but cannot renege on offers made. **

3. The entry form is the exhibitor’s agreement to take part. The biggie here is completeness/accuracy of information, (e)signature and (e)payment. An absence of any of these is a breach of contract.

The Event could be best viewed using a retail model. You have advertised a product and people have chosen to ‘buy’. The customer experience should be positive, albeit that ‘staff’ are volunteers. Preparation and conduct of the event should include discretion, attention to detail, professionalism and courtesy.

** Klink is correct. If individual Judge’s contracts were non-specific as to Groups/General Specials, and the schedule was also non-specific then exhibitors would choose their option to enter or not.

Where this would not work is areas like ours where we have smaller events. Klink has not indicated it would be mandatory. Excellent.

I think I now better understand Klink’s way of thinking how it could work, however I believe any clubs following this method would suffer in their entries.

Edited May 25, 2011 by darwinroyal

[Keshwar]

If you do not know who is judging, dont ' you think that may go some way to prevent "those faces " following judges? all over the country.By simply not showing again under a bad judge does' nothing to halt 'face judging ' simply neither the club or the judge would know that you were displeased, because another exhibitor simply takes your place, and so it goes' on.

Unless you isolate judges from the time they accept their appointment or get them to sign a confidentiality agreement how are you going to prevent this information getting out?

What is stopping Judge A from mentioning to Friend A - "I'm judging at xxxxx on dd/mm/yyyy"? Or committee member B talking to friend B, etc, etc?

As I've said previously, with access to the internet and web applications like Facebook, twitter, etc it is very hard to keep information restricted.

[poodlefan]

If you do not know who is judging, dont ' you think that may go some way to prevent "those faces " following judges? all over the country.By simply not showing again under a bad judge does' nothing to halt 'face judging ' simply neither the club or the judge would know that you were displeased, because another exhibitor simply takes your place, and so it goes' on.

Unless you isolate judges from the time they accept their appointment or get them to sign a confidentiality agreement how are you going to prevent this information getting out?

What is stopping Judge A from mentioning to Friend A - "I'm judging at xxxxx on dd/mm/yyyy"? Or committee member B talking to friend B, etc, etc?

As I've said previously, with access to the internet and web applications like Facebook, twitter, etc it is very hard to keep information restricted.

Agree with Keshwar. All removing judges names from Schedules will accomplish as far as I can see is restricting who knows about who's judging to a more limited audience. People without an "in" will be the only ones in the dark about it. Those who'd follow a face would probably know anyway.

[Keshwar]

Dog Showing – the Corporate Model

1. The Judge is contracted to an event. The organisers provide details of what will be provided. The judge completes their section. 14 days elapse and all is good. There is a ‘deal’. The biggie here is make sure you load up the judge with lots of jobs. You can take things away, but you cannot add to the contract. **

2. The Schedule is the contract with exhibitors – the when, the where, with whom, what classes, trophies, provisos. The biggie here is that you must deliver what is promised. You can add extras, but cannot renege on offers made. **

3. The entry form is the exhibitor’s agreement to take part. The biggie here is completeness/accuracy of information, (e)signature and (e)payment. An absence of any of these is a breach of contract.

The Event could be best viewed using a retail model. You have advertised a product and people have chosen to ‘buy’. The customer experience should be positive, albeit that ‘staff’ are volunteers. Preparation and conduct of the event should include discretion, attention to detail, professionalism and courtesy.

** Klink is correct. If individual Judge’s contracts were non-specific as to Groups/General Specials, and the schedule was also non-specific then exhibitors would choose their option to enter or not.

Where this would not work is areas like ours where we have smaller events. Klink has not indicated it would be mandatory. Excellent.

I think I now better understand Klink’s way of thinking how it could work, however I believe any clubs following this method would suffer in their entries.

This still prevents exhibitors making an informed choice about who they exhibit their dogs too.

Also this assumes that all judges have qualified in multiple groups.

[Jumabaar]

Like DarwinRoyal said, we only have very small shows up here and they are few and far between. We don't have the luxury of the picking and choosing which shows we attend. Sometimes we only get 1 show a month so for me I enter all shows up here unless there is something wrong with my dogs. Like many other people have said the grooming time and effort which goes into some breeds, i have Cavaliers so it takes alot to get them ready We had a judge a little while ago that wasn't particular great but I will show again underneath them, IMO these judges only push you to become a better handler. I am a fairly new exhibitor so any show that I can enter gives me more experience and at the end of the day we should be showing because we enjoy it and the dogs love not just to win. The dogs that consistently win are obviously worthy of it, if they are being put up show after show by different judges then what does that tell you!!

When I posted this idea it was to generate discussion and it has,it has never been my aim to disadvantage any clubs and I am aware that some areas' are already disadvantaged to some degree ,purely by their location. We have all had our fair share of judges that we would not wish to revisit and I understand the problem and as you commented, bad judging can also give you the personal motivation to further achieve.Grooming certain breeds can be a very hard and long process and finally to arrive and be badly judged is sadly all part of the process that we have to accept.I agree with your comment re the quality of the consistent winning dogs' and the idea was born from the regular results in our journal showing a lot of these quality dogs' being carted about the countryside blatantly following a particular judge. If the dog is so good and some are. why not show against the best competition.

Why do we have to accept it? The only way I know of to get rid of bad judges is to not enter under them. I figure if they keep getting low entires show secs will realise using them is not doing their club any favours money wise. By taking away my right to not enter judges, I am losing my form of protesting against them!!

Note- this may not mean they are a face judge, but a judge that handles exhibits roughly for example.

IMO bad judging is bad judging. It doesnt motivate me, it makes me avoid the judge!!

If you do not know who is judging, dont ' you think that may go some way to prevent "those faces " following judges? all over the country.By simply not showing again under a bad judge does' nothing to halt 'face judging ' simply neither the club or the judge would know that you were displeased, because another exhibitor simply takes your place, and so it goes' on.

Because its not just face judging that I am worried about!! Nothing is ever going to stop that, because people who are faces, generally also have friends everywhere so they are going to find out about it all anyway!!

I am MORE concerned about judges that truly do not know a good example of my breed. So they may award a complete nobody, and I can see better dogs on the day so I wont enter under them again because I do not value their opinion. Or judges that just award the fastest dog in the ring, judges that are rough with my dogs.

I know that some judges have not been used for shows because people know that they wont get big entries under them. Perhaps we should be recording how many enter under judges so that we can track their 'popularity' so to speak. So when people avoid a judge it will become apparent to show secs and they can chose judges that are more popular with the majority of competitors?? Sounds like a better method to increase numbers and weed out bad judges than not listing them.

[jr_inoz]

Because its not just face judging that I am worried about!! Nothing is ever going to stop that, because people who are faces, generally also have friends everywhere so they are going to find out about it all anyway!!

I am MORE concerned about judges that truly do not know a good example of my breed. So they may award a complete nobody, and I can see better dogs on the day so I wont enter under them again because I do not value their opinion. Or judges that just award the fastest dog in the ring, judges that are rough with my dogs.

I know that some judges have not been used for shows because people know that they wont get big entries under them. Perhaps we should be recording how many enter under judges so that we can track their 'popularity' so to speak. So when people avoid a judge it will become apparent to show secs and they can chose judges that are more popular with the majority of competitors?? Sounds like a better method to increase numbers and weed out bad judges than not listing them.

agree with this

[yarracully]

We have a list of certain judges we will not show under. However it has nothing to do with face judging.

Being a breed usually at the end of the group we have quite often been ignored for judging in group classes. Quite a few times a class winner has been called before all dogs are in the ring. So we refuse to enter under any judge that does this.

The first time it happened I had just bought a dog for my neice to show as she wanted to get into showing. At her first show she was required to go in for a class in group. The judge asked the steward to send the dogs in one breed at a time and line them up on the side opposite the ring gate.

When it was my neices turn to enter the ring the steward called her number and just as she was about to enter the ring the judge called a class winner. She only got one step into the ring. He never even had the decency to turn around and look at her dog. The result was she was shattered and has not returned to showing. I had to keep showing her dog for her as it was a four show weekend.

End result, a new exhibitor badly burned by her first show experience and a judge who I have no respect for. Similar things have happened to me but I am the type that will stand up and say something, as anyone that knows me personally will testify. My neice being only young at the time didn't.

Now we only have three local shows per year. The rest we have to travel between 3 and 6 hours each way for. So I am not going to travel that far if I don't know who the judge is in case its one that is on my blacklist.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Being a breed usually at the end of the group we have quite often been ignored for judging in group classes. Quite a few times a class winner has been called before all dogs are in the ring. So we refuse to enter under any judge that does this.

I am not a terrier person and even I have noticed this when watching the terrier group. I've also noticed that some judges make it clear what their views on Tenterfields are while judging the breed too. Stuff like shrugging shoulders and disdainfully pointing with half their back turned. I assume it must annoy the Westie people too because they are stuck behind you in the age classes!

Whippets are such a strong breed in Hounds that I can't recall the last time a class was awarded before everyone was in our ring, unless it was due to someone running up late, and that's not the judge's problem, but the steward's. I think for the sighthound people anyway the pet peeve is people who eyeball like mad and then approach straight from the front. I know that you have to look at the dog, but you can look with a soft eye and without staring.

To be fair tho', perhaps we should start a thread for judges to talk about their exhibitor pet peeves. I know as a steward I have some (one lead, 6 dogs).

[TeamSnag]

There is a judge who i will no longer pay an entry for.. While judging group lineup he looked at the 2 front breeds walk stright past me to the next dog with his back turned to me.. To me this was just wrong..

What a waste of my money n time

[Showpony]

I am not a terrier person and even I have noticed this when watching the terrier group. I've also noticed that some judges make it clear what their views on Tenterfields are while judging the breed too. Stuff like shrugging shoulders and disdainfully pointing with half their back turned. I assume it must annoy the Westie people too because they are stuck behind you in the age classes!

Hi,

Unfortuately not every judge has a 'poker face' ......... BUT......I think this comes down to just plain bad manners, superior attitude and/or poor judges training when it comes to how you conduct yourself in the show ring. If alot more judges made an effort to judge every dog with a pleasant attitude towards both the Breed, the dog in front of them and handler, I think you would re-enter under these people even if the result wasn't totally all your way.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Unfortuately not every judge has a 'poker face' ......... BUT......I think this comes down to just plain bad manners, superior attitude and/or poor judges training when it comes to how you conduct yourself in the show ring. If alot more judges made an effort to judge every dog with a pleasant attitude towards both the Breed, the dog in front of them and handler, I think you would re-enter under these people even if the result wasn't totally all your way.

Sure, especially if you know you have something they might like better now. If they are pleasant and do a consistent job I'll also consider them for appointments - I don't care if they like my stuff or not for that.

I think tho' that there are some areas where personal preferences show when perhaps they shouldn't - Tenties are one, undocked examples of docked breeds and neuters are others. None of those things affect my breed or my dogs so this is observation rather than a personal issue.

[yarracully]

Being a breed usually at the end of the group we have quite often been ignored for judging in group classes. Quite a few times a class winner has been called before all dogs are in the ring. So we refuse to enter under any judge that does this.

I am not a terrier person and even I have noticed this when watching the terrier group. I've also noticed that some judges make it clear what their views on Tenterfields are while judging the breed too. Stuff like shrugging shoulders and disdainfully pointing with half their back turned. I assume it must annoy the Westie people too because they are stuck behind you in the age classes!

Don't often get Westies in this part. There were a couple that showed on occassions but havent seen them around for a while. So we are usually last.

[yarracully]

I am not a terrier person and even I have noticed this when watching the terrier group. I've also noticed that some judges make it clear what their views on Tenterfields are while judging the breed too. Stuff like shrugging shoulders and disdainfully pointing with half their back turned. I assume it must annoy the Westie people too because they are stuck behind you in the age classes!

Hi,

Unfortuately not every judge has a 'poker face' ......... BUT......I think this comes down to just plain bad manners, superior attitude and/or poor judges training when it comes to how you conduct yourself in the show ring. If alot more judges made an effort to judge every dog with a pleasant attitude towards both the Breed, the dog in front of them and handler, I think you would re-enter under these people even if the result wasn't totally all your way.

It really is the fact that your breed is just ignored that really grinds. I always thought that the steward had to announce class complete before calling a winner. But some don't even bother to wait. It really makes you feel that you are wasting your time being there. Especially when you could be packing up and getting on the road towards home at the end of a long weekend away and a six hour drive ahead.

[Shaar]

I think it's only fair that if you have paid your entry then you have the right to have your dog judged properly.

Even if they think your dog is the worst thing in the world it's common courtesy to still let that dog have a go.