A Real Challenge

[fixer]

As exhibitors are frequently advised by judges "you are paying for my opinion" why then are exhibtors prevented from questioning an opinion they have paid for at the time the opinion is given?

If a c.c is awarded to an exhibit that is obviously not to standard for e.g., why can not exhibitors "challenge'' the awarding?

Surely "In my opinion" doesn't cut the mustard when that opinion is obviously "suspect".

[dogwoman]

This happens frequently. CCs are often awarded according to who the handler is, being a judge is very helpfull to success in the showring.

If I do not like a judges opinion, I do not enter under that judge again. Group judging would never get finished if every exhibitor stopped to ask why their dog was non-awarded, the time for this is after group has finished.

[Blakbelgian]

After group specials I have occassionally asked the judge why they made the decision they made.

Sometimes to me it doesn't make sense but I accept it & possibly don't enter under them again or just not with

that particular dog.

BB

[conztruct]

I've asked a judge questions about a decision before. I waited until after all the judging had been completed and there was a break and was very respectful to her as I really just wanted to understand where she was coming from in her reasoning - it didn't really have anything to do with whether I won anything. I thought what I had done was fair enough and I thanked her for her explanation at the time however, it was really disappointing that I later heard she was not very happy that I had questioned her. I had previously done really well under her with another dog, but I will never again show under her with any dog I have.

I guess the situation comes back to all types of competition where there is a judge or referee. Sometimes decisions are made which are obviously wrong and even in competitions where questioning does happen freely on decisions, they are very rarely changed otherwise the judge/ref feels they lose their authority.

Several years ago a very seasoned show person told me that if ever a judge mentions something in the ring about your dog that you know is incorrect in the standard, politely say "Excuse me Sir/Maam, you may like to check the standard before you make your decision?".

Don't get me wrong - judges have a difficult job to do and sometimes they can get it wrong and sometimes they agonise over decisions they've made as to whether they've been right or wrong. I totally respect that but I believe that all judges should be open to discussion at an appropriate time and also be open to the fact that they may not be correct and not afraid to pull their standard out if there's any uncertainty. I think exhibitors would appreciate this rather than view it as the judge not knowing what they're doing.

[Sandra777]

As exhibitors are frequently advised by judges "you are paying for my opinion"

I've been showing since 1979 and I have never had a judge say that to me -

Totally agree that in some instances the dog that wins is not necessarily the best dog in the ring for a sinister reason, but in all honesty how can one person have in-depth knowledge of more than a handful of breeds - in-depth knowledge to the degree of long-term exhibitors/breeders have.

Yep, certain 'groups' of dogs are pretty much the same (or exactly the same except for size/coat) - Dachshunds (all coats, both sizes), Poodles (3 sizes), Chihuahuas (S/C & L/C), Fox Terriers (Wire & Smooth) so obviously indepth knowledge of Mini Long Dachshunds is going to stand you in good stead across 6 breeds there - but your ability to pick a good Mini Long Dachshund hardly means you automatically know the best Standard Poodle.

Personally I think the idea of all breeds judges just bizarre - especially when many have been involved in the dog show scene for a relatively short space of time.

[Diva]

deleted, it's turned into one of 'those' threads and I can't be bothered

Edited January 8, 2013 by Diva

[Rebanne]

I have only ever asked a handful of judges for a critique and it has always been with the current litter I bred. All have been happy to oblige and I make it clear I had bred all the dogs they had judged :D The chance to show under a judge who has actually bred and shown greyhounds is too rare not to pick their brains.

Not sure I would ask if I was in a more popular breed and up against others.

[fixer]

I am not speaking of exhibits "YOU" think didn't deserve to be awarded.

Every second exhibitor would be questioning the decisions.

If the exhibit appears to fit its standard whether it deserves to be awarded or not is opinion & the judges opinion is all that counts on the score sheet.

Even if its "appears" to be face judging there is no still possibility of redress. "I.M.O" will win everytime.

What i'm speaking of are obvious standard contradicting "faults"

Such as mismarkings, lack of pigmentation, incorrect earset/placement, oversized, light eyes, disqualifying or "highly undesirable" colouring,too coarse,too fine, lame dogs.....etc, etc....."undersirables" that are written into the various standards. Written down things you can point at. Not opinion, fact.

If there was a procedure in place whereby the judge could be held accountable & could be called upon to explain his

/her decision to breed experts a lot of controversy would be eliminated......I.M.O.

Every experienced exhibitor/breeder is, for all intents & purposes a breed expert, & there is more angst generated amongst the knowledgable when non standard exhibits are awarded than there is over face judging.

[Rebanne]

I am not speaking of exhibits "YOU" think didn't deserve to be awarded.

Every second exhibitor would be questioning the decisions.

If the exhibit appears to fit its standard whether it deserves to be awarded or not is opinion & the judges opinion is all that counts on the score sheet.

Even if its "appears" to be face judging there is no still possibility of redress. "I.M.O" will win everytime.

What i'm speaking of are obvious standard contradicting "faults"

Such as mismarkings, lack of pigmentation, incorrect earset/placement, oversized, light eyes, disqualifying or "highly undesirable" colouring,too coarse,too fine, lame dogs.....etc, etc....."undersirables" that are written into the various standards. Written down things you can point at. Not opinion, fact.

If there was a procedure in place whereby the judge could be held accountable & could be called upon to explain his

/her decision to breed experts a lot of controversy would be eliminated......I.M.O.

Every experienced exhibitor/breeder is, for all intents & purposes a breed expert, & there is more angst generated amongst the knowledgable when non standard exhibits are awarded than there is over face judging.

but some of these these things can be only in the eye of the beholder. Someone else may look at the dog and love the bone in that dog.

If the sum of the dog is greater, in the judges opinion, then the minus (i.e. light eyes) then of course they will put them up.

Sour grapes fixer?

[Diva]

deleted, it's turned into one of 'those' threads and I can't be bothered.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Diva

[Florise]

What i'm speaking of are obvious standard contradicting "faults"

Such as mismarkings, lack of pigmentation, incorrect earset/placement, oversized, light eyes, disqualifying or "highly undesirable" colouring,too coarse,too fine, lame dogs.....etc, etc....."undersirables" that are written into the various standards. Written down things you can point at. Not opinion, fact.

I am not sure how you can know they are sub standard unless you are seeing through the judges eyes or feeling the dog with the judge's hands. I know a lot of decisions I see will never ever make sense to me but I take it all with a grain of salt now and show for social reasons only.

Bit sad that you get called sour grapes for asking your questions. Comments like that are unnecessary.

Edited January 8, 2013 by KaseyC

[ellz]

I've been showing since 1986 and I've never had a judge tell me that either, although it is one of the maxims that I show by.

There will always be decisions that you don't agree with. Occasionally I will ask a judge after judging what their thoughts were but I would be absolutely appalled if a judge criticised another dog to me. That is not on, in my opinion.

A breed standard is a blueprint. A judge signs the challenge with its declaration that they are clearly of the opinion that the dog is worthy of the title Australian Champion. If a judge puts a dog up which has obvious faults according to the standard then that is because they consider those faults to be less important than whatever virtues they have found.

And remember the little "disclaimer" that is at the bottom of every breed standard.....

Faults:

Any departure from the foregoing points should be considered a fault and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded should be in exact proportion to its degree and its effect upon the health and welfare of the dog.

[Rebanne]

Bit sad that you get called sour grapes for asking your questions. Comments like that are unnecessary.

It wasn't a comment it was a question as it has been shown time and time again that these types of threads are usually started by someone who has been beaten by, in their eyes, a vastly inferior dog.

[fixer]

If the provision was mandated it wouldn't be compulsory to "challenge'' even if you did know the standard had been prostituted.

I am only speaking of obvious to the eye of those who know.....& care.

Judges have the option to non award. The integrity of the breeds should come first & foremost in their "opinion"

Examples stated on a different website & from different states included obviously over height Bull Terrier ( miniatures)

Ditto lakeland Terriers

A black brindle SBT with yellow eyes.

I was personally in a group conversation a judge joined & was then informed she had awarded BOB to a SBT with tan points.

It was not the judges fault because the offending markings were well hidden....her reply though had people scratching their heads.

"I don't judge colour, I judge type"

A judge who obviously didn't know the standard of the breed she was judging.

Other breeds I can remember off hand were Bostons with teeth visible when the mouth was closed.

Rotties which are timid & others with a clearly visible white markings.

There were others, but I can't recall them, nor do really want to waffle on.

Except for the conversation the rest is all third hand. But it indicates that if given the chance breeders with the courage might just step forward & be counted.

If came to pass, it would snap the judging community into line, & that wouldn't be a bad thing.

[fixer]

Bit sad that you get called sour grapes for asking your questions. Comments like that are unnecessary.

It wasn't a comment it was a question as it has been shown time and time again that these types of threads are usually started by someone who has been beaten by, in their eyes, a vastly inferior dog.

One could probably say those with one dog entry breeds don't really have the experience to comment on the subject.

[Sandra777]

A black brindle SBT with yellow eyes.

Cosmetic fault - bears no relation to the quality of the dog. Even the standard doesn't actually say it's an issue

"Dark preferred" dark PREFERRED

I was personally in a group conversation a judge joined & was then informed she had awarded BOB to a SBT with tan points.

"Black and tan or liver colour highly undesirable" highly undesirable isn't a disqualification

It was not the judges fault because the offending markings were well hidden....

So you are saying the exhibitor had cosmetically altered the dog? - put your complaint together and prove it to the Canine Control. That said, again the standard only says highly undesirable - it's not a disqualification here as it is in the USA.

And does the dog have brindle points or is it a true black and tan because as pedantic as it may seem the Stafford standard finds black and tan highly undesirable, not tan points.

There's a lot of tan point Staffords out there fixer and I for one would love to see the DNA colour results for many of our more well known dogs world wide.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Sandra777

[Rebanne]

Bit sad that you get called sour grapes for asking your questions. Comments like that are unnecessary.

It wasn't a comment it was a question as it has been shown time and time again that these types of threads are usually started by someone who has been beaten by, in their eyes, a vastly inferior dog.

One could probably say those with one dog entry breeds don't really have the experience to comment on the subject.

:rofl:

[fixer]

A black brindle SBT with yellow eyes.

Cosmetic fault - bears no relation to the quality of the dog. Even the standard doesn't actually say it's an issue

"Dark preferred" dark PREFERRED

I was personally in a group conversation a judge joined & was then informed she had awarded BOB to a SBT with tan points.

"Black and tan or liver colour highly undesirable" highly undesirable isn't a disqualification

It was not the judges fault because the offending markings were well hidden....

So you are saying the exhibitor had cosmetically altered the dog? - put your complaint together and prove it to the Canine Control. That said, again the standard only says highly undesirable - it's not a disqualification here as it is in the USA.

And does the dog have brindle points or is it a true black and tan because as pedantic as it may seem the Stafford standard finds black and tan highly undesirable, not tan points.

There's a lot of tan point Staffords out there fixer and I for one would love to see the DNA colour results for many of our more well known dogs world wide.

Dark preferred but may bear some relation to coat colour. Round, of medium size, and set to look straight ahead. Eye rims dark.

If you wish to state the standard please do so in context.

Dark preferred..... BUT MAY BEAR SOME RELATION TO THE COLOUR OF THE COAT......which means the lighter the coat the lighter the acceptability of the eye colour is. conversely, the darker the dog, the darker the eye should be.

But yellow?...never.

"There is lot of tan pointed SBT's out there"....utter rubbish.

Tan points indicate Black & Tan , previously a disqualification now merely Highly Undesirable.

No ethical responsible breeder would counternance using a Black & Tan in their breeding, nor would any ethical responsible KNOWLEDGABLE judge ever award one.

It's not as though The SBT is a rare breed with a small gene pool that allowances should be made.

The breed is very strong here & dogs with tan points & yellow eyes should be weeded out, not encouraged.

[ellz]

"There is lot of tan pointed SBT's out there"....utter rubbish.

Tan points indicate Black & Tan , previously a disqualification now merely Highly Undesirable.

No ethical responsible breeder would counternance using a Black & Tan in their breeding, nor would any ethical responsible KNOWLEDGABLE judge ever award one.

WRONG!!! Black and tan is not a colour it is a pattern. It is whatever base colour plus the tan points gene. There are many other colours, including reds that show the tan patterning. Smut dogs carry the tan point gene. Sable/smut doesn't exist without it.

Many dogs are awarded by knowledgeable judges which exhibit this pattern, there are many brindle dogs out there which have brindling/pencilling in the tan point areas. Most breed standards which include the tan points gene specifically mention tan that is from the palest cream to the darkest red and many specifically mention that pencilling is not desirable.

The original Stafford standard was written before the genetics of colour inheritance were understood.

[fixer]

"So you are saying the exhibitor had cosmetically altered the dog?"

You couldn't be as naive as you sound? Surely?

Ever heard of mascara?

Marking pens ?

Chalk?

Powder?

How about hairspray & blowdriers?

curling wands?

scissors?

Plush puppy?

vaseline?

Boot polish even?

It would be harder to find a dog that wasn't "cosmetically altered"