|
|
|
|
What's being discussed at Clarges Street
AGENDAITEM 1. TO ELECT A CHAIRMAN FOR THE TERM OF THE COUNCIL ITEM 2. TO ELECT A VICE CHAIRMAN FOR THE TERM OF THE COUNCIL ITEM 3. TO ELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO THE WORKING TRIALS, OBEDIENCE AND AGILITY SUB-COMMITTEE EFFECTIVE FROM JUNE 2007 ITEM 4. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE ITEM 5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 12 July 2006. Copies previously distributed. ITEM 6. MATTERS ARISING/RESULTS OF RECOMMENDATIONS
(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
c.
Wishing Well Measurements 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. Rob White & Dave 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 in yellow) 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:
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. Gemma Hanekom & Tony 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 in yellow ) This proposal has been put forward as Gemma 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. Gemma 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. Gemma Hanekom believes this proposal would help produce more consistent and top quality dogs for this country. c. Graham Partridge & Tony 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 in yellow) 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. Graham Partridge & Tony 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. ITEM 8. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Agility specimen schedule - Dave Ray b. International Mixed & Breed Championships for Agility - Dave Ray Dave 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. Tony Griffin will give a verbal report on the progress of the Judges Working Party. b. Tony 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
15 December 2006 |
|
|
[bottom.htm] © Copyright Agilitynet |
The Kennel Club
Liaison Council Agility Council meets regularly to discuss various rule changes and current hot
topics. The agenda is sent out before each meeting to all clubs which we will reprint here. If
you are interested in the direction your sport is going, these documents are essential reading.
Think about the issues, discuss them with your friends and club mates and then don't forget to
let your area rep know your views.