# IPO seminars???



## cindy_s (Jun 14, 2009)

Just wondering. Are there any regions planning on having an IPO seminer? I personally think it would be a great idea. There is nothing that makes you feel worst than dropping points on hander error. 
I know I have several little questions, and I'm sure more will pop up. You must give your dog a command to send them on the escape and long bite. But, I read somewhere you can not say pachen. I have worked long and hard with "don't bite and get dirty" when you hear voran with my dog. I don't want to send her to bite with a voran command. Granted, she is on auto-pilot, but I think it culd be confusing to the dog. So what word would be OK to use? Rever? 
So, I was just curious, ARE there any regions planning seminars?


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

The command on the escape has been a part of IPO for a long time. As have the restrictions against any sort of "bite" command on the IPO escape, and long bite in both IPO adn SchH. Anything that isn't a "bite" command is ok to use. Most people just use something like a release word (free, ok, etc...) or "go" or something like that. I'd never use an existing command that would have other meaning to the dog and don't know anyone who does.

The schedule of events for the USCA Nationals includes a seminar going over the rule changes. So those going to that would have the opportunity to attend, and I'm sure even if USCA doesn't provided more details of the changes people who have been to that seminar will be able to share them.

I'm not aware of any other seminars scheduled, but most judges are happy to answer questions if you just ask them.


----------



## Uniballer (Mar 12, 2002)

I'm sure you could just say "Go!" or "Go on!". "Get him!" is probably out.

"Voran" has been my command for the long bite since the rule change that forbade "packen". I've always used "revier" for the blind search and guarding.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

So, using the command "Attack" to send your dog would be against the new rules?


----------



## schh3fh2 (Oct 12, 2011)

Castlemaid said:


> So, using the command "Attack" to send your dog would be against the new rules?


Yes...it's also against the exsisting rules too....


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

"Fass"? (to take, as in, grab hold of, grip, grasp)


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Castlemaid said:


> So, using the command "Attack" to send your dog would be against the new rules?


I already is, and has been for several years. 

It's all about public perception. Apparently if we just release our dogs from a sit/down and they run off and bite someone, or use some neutral word like "go" and they run off and bite someone, that gives a better impression to the public and makes the dogs seem less dangerous and us less nutty than if we actually tell them to bite and then they bite someone. :rolleyes2:


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Makes a ton of sense, doesn't it Chris?


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

*snort*


----------



## schh3fh2 (Oct 12, 2011)

Liesje said:


> "Fass"? (to take, as in, grab hold of, grip, grasp)


It's still a bite command, just a different language....not allowed.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Fass has long been considered a bite command and used as such, so that would probably be out too.

I use voran, since I use revier for the blind search/H&B. Never trained for it. Had always used packen before the rule change in 03 or 04 or whenever it was, then couldn't use packen anymore so just picked a different word and started using it in trial. In training I do still use packen, and it's never made any difference to the dog what I say in trial. The dog is going to go, whether you have a specific command word, sneeze, cough or say peanuts.


----------



## cindy_s (Jun 14, 2009)

Well, thanks guys! I guess revier it is then.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

lhczth said:


> Makes a ton of sense, doesn't it Chris?


Oh yes indeed. <snort>

The command on the escape seems the most silly, and also bothersome (from a principle standpoint) when one considers the roots of the exercise. I always thought it would make more sense to instead have the handler give some sort of "guard" or "watch him" command before going into the blind. Then it's clear to anyone watching what the dog's job is, and that when the helper runs the dog is indeed supposed to stop him. Keeps the exercise more true to its purpose, while still eliminating any silly impression of dogs just biting people who run because they feel like it. It would cover the PR concern, and give an opportunity to educate the ignorant about the whole thing at the same time. Whereas giving a command, which we all know is meaningless, just further divorces sport from its foundation or purpose to preserve working dogs. And its even more absurd that we have to give a command for the dog to bite, but can't actually tell the dog to bite. :headbang:


----------



## schh3fh2 (Oct 12, 2011)

Chris Wild said:


> Oh yes indeed. <snort>
> 
> And its even more absurd that we have to give a command for the dog to bite, but can't actually tell the dog to bite. :headbang:


 HaHaHa You got it... I would rather have had them put back the control of arms up, handler does a pat down and then goes to the blind, like it used to be and show the dog is "guarding" in the down position when the handler leaves.... I just say "ok" and off he goes...I could probably say "Spaghetti" and he would still go.... 

 Frank


----------



## cindy_s (Jun 14, 2009)

I guess my concern about saying "go on" or "OK", was that I was afraid to get dinged on using a second language.


----------



## SchHGSD (Dec 20, 2001)

The Southwest Region is having a seminar in January, just to discuss and go through the routine with handlers (no dogs).


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

> I would rather have had them put back the control of arms up, handler does a pat down and then goes to the blind, like it used to be and show the dog is "guarding" in the down position when the handler leaves


Yes, absolutely. That one part of the routine made everything about SchH protection clear enough to the general public. They removed it and now are trying to find ridiculous ways to make it look "right". This is what happens when you try to appease the ignorant.
Educate them and move right along. 

There are actually people who have the ability to understand once something is explained or conducted in a way that makes it clear. This constant attempt to "hide" what SchH is, by calling it a "game" etc, is making matters FAR worse than people realize.


----------



## jesusica (Jan 13, 2006)

I use arrest.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

When they still had the disarming of the helper it did make a heck of a lot more sense. You could tell people it was based on old police dog tests and they fully understood that concept. Not sure why they removed the disarming part except that it did require more control yet now they are wanting more control............ ??????


----------



## crackem (Mar 29, 2006)

cindy_s said:


> I guess my concern about saying "go on" or "OK", was that I was afraid to get dinged on using a second language.


 I don't think you get dinged for using a second language. i've used a mix of German, English and with one dog even french, and never lost any points for it as long as you use the same word for each exercise. 

Where you get dinged is you'd use "heel" for obedience heeling and then "fuss" for protection heeling. Or say "jump" for the hurdle and "hup" for the a-frame or changing "language" like that. 

at least that's always been my understanding. There is no "official" language or command that you must use.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Yup, very true. It made a lot more sense to everyone, participants and spectators alike, and it was pretty obvious to anyone watching exactly what dog and handler and helper were doing, whether they knew anything about dogs and SchH at all.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

crackem said:


> I don't think you get dinged for using a second language. i've used a mix of German, English and with one dog even french, and never lost any points for it as long as you use the same word for each exercise.


Seems to depend on the judge and his/her interpretation of the rules. I do know people who have gotten dinged for inconsistent language even though I don't see anywhere in the rules where it says the language has to be consistent, just the same command for the same type of exercise like you mentioned. But it's happened. The ones I'm most familiar with are two different cases where the handler got dinged for using the English "stand" for the stand out of motion, while the rest of the commands were in German. Which can get tricky for people who do multiple venues, as in AKC using the German stand command of "steh" can get you into trouble for sounding too much like "stay" and the judge thinking you're telling your dog to stay at the wrong time.


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

crackem said:


> I don't think you get dinged for using a second language. i've used a mix of German, English and with one dog even french, and never lost any points for it as long as you use the same word for each exercise.
> 
> Where you get dinged is you'd use "heel" for obedience heeling and then "fuss" for protection heeling. Or say "jump" for the hurdle and "hup" for the a-frame or changing "language" like that.
> 
> at least that's always been my understanding. There is no "official" language or command that you must use.


There is no official language, but you are required to use the same language thruout. You can not start in French, go to German, etc,.


----------



## crackem (Mar 29, 2006)

hmmmm, well i've done a bit of all of it, never had a problem. I guess I'll count myself lucky


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

You are lucky. I had asked this question before of husband. Normal rule is what I stated. Some judges might not catch it, ignore it or may not know it.


----------



## cindy_s (Jun 14, 2009)

crackem said:


> hmmmm, well i've done a bit of all of it, never had a problem. I guess I'll count myself lucky


I guess I don't want to count on being lucky. My obedience commands are German. Some judges can be tough! There are enough points to be lost in legit ways. It would be awful to drop points on a meaningless word. I wish they had decided what word/words that would be OK to use, and had put them in the rules. I like Chris' idea of using revier.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Sue (or anyone else) can you tell me where in the rules it says the same language must be used throughout? I know this has come up before and I have gone through them several times looking for it and cannot find that stated in the rules. That commands must be consistent, yes that is clearly stated. Can't use fuß here and heel there. But I cannot find anywhere that it would prohibit mixing English and German for example. But maybe I'm just missing it?

If that is the case, then is using "Go" as the ok to bite command in protection like Frank and so many others now do acceptable? If the rest is in German, as it usually is, then wouldn't that be mixing languages. Or is it specific to the obedience phase?


----------



## wolfstraum (May 2, 2003)

I liked the disarming - it did make sense to non dog people for sure!

 I sometimes say 'cupcakes' for the long bite! lol lol It does not matter what word you use - once the dog has done the exercises, they know what is coming...but actually - I just use 'go on" or 'go',,,

I use all German if I train the dog except for that 'go'...Basha came from Belgium and her commands are mix of German and Flemish - heir is here, and sitz is sit - but foot is heel/fuss, and los is out/aus, and dek is down/plaitz.....blind search is reivere as well...I asked my Czech friend about their commands last month, and they use reviere as well....so there are certain commands that are consistant accross languages.

I use alot of silly words for the recall...dogs were getting up before a word - just open your mouth and they were up...so started saying Dairy Queen, banana splits, herosandwich....and watch the butt go up and back down.....they learned patience and to wait for the actual recall command.


----------



## schh3fh2 (Oct 12, 2011)

Chris Wild said:


> Sue (or anyone else) can you tell me where in the rules it says the same language must be used throughout? I know this has come up before and I have gone through them several times looking for it and cannot find that stated in the rules. That commands must be consistent, yes that is clearly stated. Can't use fuß here and heel there. But I cannot find anywhere that it would prohibit mixing English and German for example. But maybe I'm just missing it?
> 
> If that is the case, then is using "Go" as the ok to bite command in protection like Frank and so many others now do acceptable? If the rest is in German, as it usually is, then wouldn't that be mixing languages. Or is it specific to the obedience phase?


 Hi Chris

Well I actually use "OK" which is kind of international slang and used in every language now...LOL

But posted on USA website Sept 24, 2008 the clearifications of rules from WUSV Judges meeting....

*OBEDIENCE*
There were not many questions regarding obedience. It was again stressed that the dog’s temperament and drives should be clearly explained to the handler and spectators. Here are a few bulleted items;

Judge tells when to begin each exercise 
Handler is responsible for the content of each exercise 
Commands can be given in any language, but must be consistent 
 Now does that mean consistant commands or consistant language???? I guess it is open to interpretation...

Here is what is said in the "NEW" 2012 rules....

_Commands that are embodied in the trial rules are spoken in a normal, short and in a one word manner. 
They may be done in any language, however must remain the same for an exercise.(valid for all phases). 
The commands provided in the rules are suggestions. The same word is to be used for the same exercise._

Everyone should pay attention to this on the "Heir Fuss" callout command...said "in a one word manner"


Frank


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I say "search" as my tracking command and "sit" instead of "sitz" or whatever German word is used (because it never seemed correct to me, our German instructor used a totally different verb for to sit/sit down) but the rest of my commands are all the normal ones (fuss, platz, heir, aus, hop/bring). I guess I'll see how that goes...


----------



## cindy_s (Jun 14, 2009)

Thank you so much Frank. I hope we don't wear you out with questions. It is wonderful to have a true authority on the board.


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

schh3fh2 said:


> Hi Chris
> 
> Well I actually use "OK" which is kind of international slang and used in every language now...LOL
> 
> ...


Frank,

Thank you for the verification on the language. I have always been told that is must be in same language throughout. When this came up a while back, I double checked with Gabor and he re-iterated that it must be in the same language. Whether in the USA, Europe, etc, no matter what level.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Thanks, Frank. But I guess I still don't see the rules stating that the *language* must be consistent. Only consistency in the sense of the same command used for the same exercise. Yes, the way it's written in the clarifications on the USCA website could leave it open to interpretation as you said. But someone's notes on a website aren't the same as the actual rules and whenever the actual rules refer to consistency they refer to exercises, not language.

I know in the end it will always come down to judge's interpretation. Some will interpret it as consistency in language, some will not. Experienced that first hand. Though it would seem this is an area where an official ruling on what exactly it means from the equivalent of the IPO rules supreme court might be in order. In the meantime we'll all have to decide which words we want to use, often having to take into account other venues and realize that we may have to sacrifice points in one to maximize them in the other, and roll the dice with regard to what judge and interpretation we happen to trial under.


----------



## schh3fh2 (Oct 12, 2011)

cindy_s said:


> Thank you so much Frank. I hope we don't wear you out with questions. It is wonderful to have a true authority on the board.


 
LOL...I don't know if I would go that far.....I'm still learning also....


----------



## schh3fh2 (Oct 12, 2011)

Smithie86 said:


> Frank,
> 
> Thank you for the verification on the language. I have always been told that is must be in same language throughout. When this came up a while back, I double checked with Gabor and he re-iterated that it must be in the same language. Whether in the USA, Europe, etc, no matter what level.


 Hi Sue


I have always been told that also....But for me judging, I don't like to take points unless the rules say so....so I am a little conflicted about this until I get clearification...I know consistant is for each task, same command...but does it also mean same language? I hope the DVD's clear it up, but with all the training I am doing now to get ready for Nats I haven't had time to watch them yet....


----------



## schh3fh2 (Oct 12, 2011)

Chris Wild said:


> Thanks, Frank. But I guess I still don't see the rules stating that the *language* must be consistent. Only consistency in the sense of the same command used for the same exercise. Yes, the way it's written in the clarifications on the USCA website could leave it open to interpretation as you said. But someone's notes on a website aren't the same as the actual rules and whenever the actual rules refer to consistency they refer to exercises, not language.
> .


Well that is not exactly true....When the DOJ posts on USCA website and printed in magazine, they start being enforced 60 days later.....so they are "actual rules"....I have also been told it is language too, but.....

For me as a competitor...I don't see the "need" to change languages....so I'm just staying consistant with one language and then I do not have to worry about it......There is no reason why someone "must" change languages.....


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

The only place I use German (yeah, I am odd that way) is "hier fuss" since that was the only option when it first came out. I heard someone say "come heel" in a trial under a German judge and he knocked them for it. I have just stayed with "hier fuss".


----------



## holland (Jan 11, 2009)

Great DVDs every time I get a DVD I always want to clean my house-wonder how much they will charge for them? Sadly I don't watch DVDs nearly enough


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

schh3fh2 said:


> There is no reason why someone "must" change languages.....


I agree, just in SchH alone there isn't. There can be a good reason if the person competes in other venues, such as the AKC example I gave, which many people do. IMO anything that would make venues mutually exclusive in any regard, and possibly impact participation and drawing interest from other dog people, unless it is essential to evaluation of the dog and it's training (which nitpicking words doesn't), just isn't a good idea. Of course the Germans writing the rules don't care, nor do they have a reason to. But in the US this is something I think should be taken into consideration.




lhczth said:


> The only place I use German (yeah, I am odd that way) is "hier fuss" since that was the only option when it first came out. I heard someone say "come heel" in a trial under a German judge and he knocked them for it. I have just stayed with "hier fuss".


Yup, and for the time where it was interpreted that "hier fuß" was the only acceptable command for the call out, that set up a situation for the rules to conflict themselves. Because if someone did use English elsewhere this set them up to not just use inconsistent languages, but inconsistent command words for the same exercise (recall and heel) which the rules clearly state isn't allowed. So technically points should have come off somewhere either way because the rules were phrased in such a way as to make it impossible for someone using a language other than German to get full points.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

My reason for not using certain words is that I can't say them the way they are really said so I always felt silly or self-conscious saying it wrong even though so many people do. The few formal SchH commands I use English for rather than German sound very similar anyway. The rest of my commands (ones not used in a SchH trial) are a mixed bag, for example I use "pass auf" to alert my dog for SDA protection but "get in" for a left finish in Rally. How would a SchH judge even know if you are using mixed languages? German and English might be fairly obvious but what if I used Dutch commands instead and threw in two Swahili ones, lol? Also like Chris said, sometimes commands conflict. I used "hup" (like "hop" or however people spell it, the word to go over the jump in schH) in a different context because it is a Dutch word used for something else. For a long time, I never gave my dog a "hop" command for the retrieves, just "bring" from the get-go and have only recently added the "hop" getting ready for trail after abandoning my original usage of it.


----------



## schh3fh2 (Oct 12, 2011)

Chris Wild said:


> I agree, just in SchH alone there isn't. There can be a good reason if the person competes in other venues, such as the AKC example I gave, which many people do. IMO anything that would make venues mutually exclusive in any regard, and possibly impact participation and drawing interest from other dog people, unless it is essential to evaluation of the dog and it's training (which nitpicking words doesn't), just isn't a good idea. Of course the Germans writing the rules don't care, nor do they have a reason to. But in the US this is something I think should be taken into consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Hi Chris....

OK to your first point...if I was someone that wanted to do other venues...then train ALL in english, who cares what language the commands are in, the dog certainly doesn't....

For point 2....The command "hier fuß" was for in German..."Here heel" is perfectly acceptable.....so the rules did not contradict themselves....what was ment is you can't say just heel command (like we used to) You must use "here heel" in your language of choice :laugh:


Frank


----------



## schh3fh2 (Oct 12, 2011)

Liesje said:


> My reason for not using certain words is that I can't say them the way they are really said so I always felt silly or self-conscious saying it wrong even though so many people do. The few formal SchH commands I use English for rather than German sound very similar anyway. The rest of my commands (ones not used in a SchH trial) are a mixed bag, for example I use "pass auf" to alert my dog for SDA protection but "get in" for a left finish in Rally. How would a SchH judge even know if you are using mixed languages? German and English might be fairly obvious but what if I used Dutch commands instead and threw in two Swahili ones, lol? Also like Chris said, sometimes commands conflict. I used "hup" (like "hop" or however people spell it, the word to go over the jump in schH) in a different context because it is a Dutch word used for something else. For a long time, I never gave my dog a "hop" command for the retrieves, just "bring" from the get-go and have only recently added the "hop" getting ready for trail after abandoning my original usage of it.


 Kind of my point, you have "your" reasons why "you like" to use different commands and languages...but there is NO reason why you COULDN'T use the same language....I know the commands for English, German, Dutch, French, Norwegian, Swedish, Flemish and Hungarian....just from being around a while.....someone wants to use swahili...go ahead, but they should all be Swahili...LOL

I am also talking about handlers that want to COMPETE at higher levels....at a club trial a Judge may mention it but may not take points, if they do it would probably be small....unless he was grumpy :shocked:


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

That's good to know, Frank, that it has been clarified that the English phrasing is allowed so long as it's the combo command of come and heel. For quite a while that didn't seem to be the case and a whole lot of people, more than a few judges included, believed the rules stated that it had to be "Hier fuß", and couldn't be the English equivalent. I heard it stated that way many times, as have others, that it must be the German phrasing and Lisa mentioned one person losing points for not using the German phrasing. So again depends on judge and interpretation.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

schh3fh2 said:


> who cares what language the commands are in, the dog certainly doesn't....



exactly


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Dog doesn't for sure. But being a species that has brains hardwired for language far beyond the simple associations dog's make, many handler's do and what words are used can significantly impact the handler's ability to use them, and comfort in doing so. Nevermind the simple problem of habit. I've used German so long for formal commands, and English for everyday stuff, that I know I'd have a hard time switching over. Especially mid-stream with some dogs knowing one, and other dogs another and trying to remember which is which and flip the language switch in my brain between working dogs. Certainly I could if I really cared all that much about potentially losing a point here or there for it. I'm far more interested in keeping things moving smoothly in training and using commands I'm comfortable with and my brain is programmed with and if that means I lose a point somewhere, so be it. But really I just find it rather ridiculous that it matters at all. Not quite as ridiculous as the having to tell the dogs to bite without being able to tell them to bite, but pretty close. I know, if someone decided that all dogs doing SchH had to be dyed purple, no matter how absurd it is once it's in the rules the participants would have to do it and the judges would have to enforce it so it's really a moot point. But in anything that is open to individual interpretation, as some of the more nitpicky things in the rules like language are, it's a good idea to try to uncover what's the most common interpretation, and be aware of what points could be lost for it. Thanks, Frank for clarifying, and sorry to be such a PITA.


----------



## crackem (Mar 29, 2006)

This still doesn't clear it up for me . To me it says any language, but it has to be consistent for the exercises, so i can't use a english heel for obedience and german Fuss for protection.

It's not an issue for any of my dogs now, but it was earlier. I had gotten an older dog and teaching stand was next to impossible it sounded like stay, which she had been taught, not by me, but earlier. It was months and it was still stay to her, which if in motion and said it, it was fine, but I like my dogs to understand the exercise. Stand is stand from any position, anywhere and don't move. If she was sitting, she stayed sitting and didn't move, if she was down, she didn't moved, if she was standing, well she didn't move. Good enough for trial but not for me.

I changed to french for stand and had it down in 2 weeks. Everything was clear and I was happy. I used all german in the trial except the stand and nobody ever said anything. I wasn't in the nationals, but I wasn't in one lowly club trial either.

I understand having rules, but sometimes being nitpicky just to be on a pretty vague rule is kind of silly


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

The not mixing languages thing is kind of a silly rule when you consider that some of the words already overlap, like bring and hier. Am I saying here or hier? Who can really tell? I don't roll my "r" when I say bring, I think of it like the English word and say it that way. My friend cannot roll her "r" even if she tries so hers comes out like mine though she means for all the commands to be German. Really it doesn't bother me and I don't plan to change any of my commands now or in the future but it just seems kind of silly. I may change my stand command though b/c Chris made me realize if I try to do other obedience the "steh" will most likely be interpreted as "stay" and I'm not sure if a stay command is given for that exercise.


----------



## schh3fh2 (Oct 12, 2011)

crackem said:


> I understand having rules, but sometimes being nitpicky just to be on a pretty vague rule is kind of silly


 But in a competition (Regional, National) then there must be a difference between the handler that follows the rules to the letter and the one who isn't so nitpicky....


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I think that would be awesome if all the dogs were SO good that the podium had to be decided based on commands!


----------



## schh3fh2 (Oct 12, 2011)

Liesje said:


> I think that would be awesome if all the dogs were SO good that the podium had to be decided based on commands!


I didn't say podium...Just wouldn't be fair to a handler, if that one and another handler had the exact same routine and scored the same when the first one followed the rules to the letter and the second one didn't....even if they both scored 73....it's a competition and the more correct to the letter of the rules must score higher....


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Thing is, what I've gathered from the discussion is that the letter of the rules are still vague and open to interpretation. So it's not so much who follows the letter as it is who plays it safe by just making sure they use the same language should they happen to be trialing under judges with one interpretation. Which agreed, for someone who is shooting for competition would be the wise thing to do since there is no possible point reward if the handler is consistent under a judge who doesn't read the rule that way, but there is a possible point loss for mixing languages under a judge who interprets it as not allowed. So while we don't really have an answer on what the absolute correct interpretation is, we do know how to play it safe.


----------



## crackem (Mar 29, 2006)

schh3fh2 said:


> But in a competition (Regional, National) then there must be a difference between the handler that follows the rules to the letter and the one who isn't so nitpicky....


I agree, in that basic position is basic position, now crooked, heel is heel, not forged wrapped, lagging. A retrieve has elements of a good retrieve. Double commands are double commands and penalized. Using the same command throughout a routine for the same exercise/position should be followed. a german word or an english word? as long as it's one command, what's the point of being nitpicky? because we can be?


----------



## schh3fh2 (Oct 12, 2011)

crackem said:


> I agree, in that basic position is basic position, now crooked, heel is heel, not forged wrapped, lagging. A retrieve has elements of a good retrieve. Double commands are double commands and penalized. Using the same command throughout a routine for the same exercise/position should be followed. a german word or an english word? as long as it's one command, what's the point of being nitpicky? because we can be?


Here is an example.....You and I are both entered in a championship.... Our dogs both do the exact same track, but at the articles you say "good boy" before you pick up the article and then pat him after you show the article before you pick up the tracking line, and I only praise after I show the article to the judge.....does what you did really matter? No, but I BETTER score more then you because I followed the rules and you did not...if you want to call that nit piky? so be it......But rules are rules and at a championship they should be enforced to the letter.....If you disagree that is your right.....

I do not believe that Judges make up stuff just to mess with handlers. But if a judge was told at their judges meeting that "that" line means same language throughout, then he is going to enforce that....We do not have control over Judges meetings from other countries and unfortunately not everything can be covered in a meeting here (new rules are 128 pages long) and some things can be interpreted 2 ways as written.... You can argue it all you want but for me as a competitor, I will interpret the way that will never cost me points....especially if it really doesn't matter to the dog.....


Frank


----------



## crackem (Mar 29, 2006)

no, my example is more like, you said fuss, and your dog had perfect position. I said heel and my dog had perfect position. WHat's the difference? why should anyone score differently?

in your example there is praise either before the article is presented or after, but not both. That is clear. You get one chance to praise your dog, i get one chance to praise my dog at an article, not Two chances. If I take two, I should score lower, it's clear and the rule is clear.


----------



## schh3fh2 (Oct 12, 2011)

crackem said:


> no, my example is more like, you said fuss, and your dog had perfect position. I said heel and my dog had perfect position. WHat's the difference? why should anyone score differently?
> 
> .


 
There is no difference in your example...both are completely acceptable...and WILL score the same 

You could say the same thing if you said hier for recall and come for blind search...but by the rules it's faulty....That's all I have been saying, if the rules say NO then points should be taken at higher levels....

I'm sorry you can not see how _"__Commands can be given in any language, but must be consistent "_ could be interpreted as the language must be consistant...but I can how it could be....



The only thing I can say is if you don't like the way the rules are translated and interpreted and think you can do a better job, step up and volunteer to do all the work.....People do their best and I am not going to condem a VOLUNTEER. People are working hard fixing grammer mistakes, putting in our variances and clearify the rules before Our version of the rules are released....Hopefully this will be taken care of, if not then the only thing I can recommend is if you stay consistant on commands AND language then you won't have to worry about anything...If not, you take your chances in maybe getting dinged....but maybe not....


----------



## crackem (Mar 29, 2006)

but using come and heir are different commands for the same thing, and clearly stated you can not do that. I can't say come after the down in motion and then in the blind search say heir without penalty.. 2 different commands for the same action.

But If I say "name come" around the blind (and use come for all other recalls) and then use voran for going to the next blind, how is that any different than saying "name heir"....voran?

I didn't mean to make this into such a big deal. I had an interpretation of the rule, to me it seems pretty straight forward. I have never gotten in trouble for it. I do plenty of other stuff to lose points from. Others obviously interpret it differently. 


I do volunteer lots of time. Multiple days a week i'm a helper, i've entertained judges while they stay in America, hosted seminars, put on shows and trials and all the work that goes along with those. I'm not condemning anyone, other than a vague rule


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

I think that the point is that the translation of the rules is not 1 to 1. That has been the difficulty and challenge when trying to implement the rules changes. 

The rule has been 1 language, consistently thru that phase. So, if you start English in OB, it must be English thru out OB phase. The rules clarify the existing rule.


----------



## crackem (Mar 29, 2006)

you'll have to show me that rule again


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

What country or org would you like? 

I will get the FCI one from friend who is a FCI judge, trainer, WUSV/FCI competitor and WUSV helper (2x).


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Smithie86 said:


> So, if you start English in OB, it must be English thru out OB phase. The rules clarify the existing rule.


So can you change languages across phases?


----------



## crackem (Mar 29, 2006)

Smithie86 said:


> What country or org would you like?
> 
> I will get the FCI one from friend who is a FCI judge, trainer, WUSV/FCI competitor and WUSV helper (2x).


OK, get them all

because this one 


> Commands that are embodied in the trial rules are spoken in a normal, short and in a one word manner.
> They may be done in any language, however must remain the same for an exercise.(valid for all phases).
> The commands provided in the rules are suggestions. The same word is to be used for the same exercise.


doesn't say anything like that


----------



## SchHGSD (Dec 20, 2001)

I've been dinged at a club trial for changing languages, for my stand (USA judge). Same dog was NOT dinged, twice, at the Regional level. One USA judge and one SV judge. He scored a 285 at one of those trials, so it was not a case of "well, it doesn't matter in her points".

I have also, in the last 3 years, trialed under a judge that made me go into blind #1 and heel out to the center line just like the old style courage tests. No ifs ands or butts, every dog at that trial had to go into the blind and heel out. That way of doing the test was changed back in 2003 I believe. 

I will not, however, switch languages in a dog's training again, and take that risk.


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

SchHGSD said:


> I've been dinged at a club trial for changing languages, for my stand (USA judge). Same dog was NOT dinged, twice, at the Regional level. One USA judge and one SV judge. He scored a 285 at one of those trials, so it was not a case of "well, it doesn't matter in her points".
> 
> I have also, in the last 3 years, trialed under a judge that made me go into blind #1 and heel out to the center line just like the old style courage tests. No ifs ands or butts, every dog at that trial had to go into the blind and heel out. That way of doing the test was changed back in 2003 I believe.
> 
> I will not, however, switch languages in a dog's training again, and take that risk.


I think it goes back to enforcing the current rule and the rules are being clarified, since some were confused, not informed correctly or did not enforce at the local club level.

Crackem - I will get the one set next week from the FCI judge. But, since we train for one consistent language per phase, it is not an issue for us.


----------



## schh3fh2 (Oct 12, 2011)

Smithie86 said:


> I think it goes back to enforcing the current rule and the rules are being clarified, since some were confused, not informed correctly or did not enforce at the local club level.
> 
> Crackem - I will get the one set next week from the FCI judge. But, since we train for one consistent language per phase, it is not an issue for us.


 The rule that Crackem quotes is the 2012 version (new FCI Rules) the exsisting rule says _"__Commands can be given in any language, but must be consistent "_ and I can see where that could be interpreted as consistant with the language..... This is how the rule was written when you were dinged Michele...:crazy:


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

schh3fh2 said:


> The rule that Crackem quotes is the 2012 version (new FCI Rules) the exsisting rule says "Commands can be given in any language, but must be consistent " and I can see where that could be interpreted as consistant with the language..... This is how the rule was written when you were dinged Michele...:crazy:


 
I don't have my USCA rulebook here at work to look up the exact wording as it is listed in there and of course it isn't available online. However other translations are available online.

This is a direct copy/paste of the only statements about language in the current VDH rulebook:

Verbal commands are to be brief, given in a normal voice, consisting of one single word. The commands can be given in any language, but the same command must be used for the same function at all times. (Valid for all divisions).
The commands are described in the guidelines. Verbal commands are spoken normally – brief commands, consisting of one word. The commands may be given in any language, but the same command is to be used for the same action every time.

And from the current FCI IPO rules:
Verbal commands are brief orders given in a normal voice, consisting of one single word. The commands can be given in any language. The same command must be used for the same task at all times.
Verbal commands are normally spoken, brief commands, consisting of one word. The commands may be given in any language. However, the same command is used for the same task at all times.

I do think that makes it pretty clear the intent of the rule refers not to consistency of language, but of commands. I really don't think the intent would vary from one translation to the other, but certainly the finer points of the wording can and in that case yes it could be open to interpretation.

I guess what really bothers me about the whole thing is if something IS open to interpretation as this is, why other sources of the same document aren't referenced to clarify which interpretation is correct.

When two different interpretations are possible;

One of which would potentially penalize handlers for something that is very minor and nitpicky and has absolutely *nothing* to do with the purpose, intent or spirit of the rules... to test a dog's temperament and the quality of his training... and also leaves room for this argument in the first place, and for someone to have a very, very legitimate complaint if they were dinged for mixing languages because it is very clearly not specified in the rules, but rather is clearly specified in some as a non issue and left more vague in other versions. And above all is inconsistent with the way every other SchH organization has documented the language rule.
OR
One which clearly keeps better to the spirit of the sport, wouldn't unfairly reward or penalilze anyone, and frankly just makes everything easier by not setting up a situation for a legitimate complaint and is consistent with every other organization.

Why would the first interpretation be chosen? Especially when other forms of the rules contridict it. That just doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## schh3fh2 (Oct 12, 2011)

Chris Wild said:


> Why would the first interpretation be chosen? Especially when other forms of the rules contridict it. That just doesn't make sense to me.


 The only thing I would say to this is....Why would a judge go to another organizations rules when he has the Rule Book from HIS organization and is told the clearifications from the WUSV Judges meeting from the person that was there.....If the Judge that attended the meeting misunderstood the rule, then there is a mistake and people (Judges included) make mistakes....But in the set of rules we are talking about, you quote the VDH and the FCI rules, The FCI rules are IPO and a completely different title (at that time) and the SV follows VDH rules (with modifications) and we follow the SV rules (with modification) so......

I understand that people are fussing over this, let me ask a question. how many people have actually lost points for this and how many did they loose....I have never seen anyone actually loose points for this.... The rules are never going to be perfect, this is an "opinion" sport (i.e. how fast is a fast enough sit in motion).... Believe me, I hate it when Judges make stuff up, I had a judge tell us we had to hold the dumbbell a specific way for the finish...doesn't say anything about that in the rules....so I understand what you are saying...But when the DOJ puts out a new "clearification" of the rules and says it means "this" and that is what they said at the meeting...we can only do what we are told.....

However, I agree the rule should be more clearly spelled out (and IS in the new rules)...But then if you think they are not clear, the thing to do is write a email to the Judges commitee or the DOJ, ask for clearifications and see if they can be modified and printed in the magazine to be more clear...

There are 128 pages in the New Rules, written in a foreign language and then translated into English...mistake WILL and HAVE been made...

as I said before USCA is in the process of putting together OUR Trial rules, with our variances and hopefully some grammer corrections and clearifications.....


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

I think it is a translation issue, not interpretation. Translation 1st, then interpretation of the translation.

Just got off phone with Gabor (he is taking care of his father) and ask him yet again and he re-iterated that it is same language that needs to be used throughout the same phase. He mentioned that he has seen some judges overlook it at trials in the states, from all orgs at the local level, but follow it at the higher level. It is consistent one language, one phase, in Europe where he has trialed, local, regional, WUSV/FCI qualifiers and WUSV/FCI world events.


The judge I mentioned above was there and asked why people are asking about it since it is known rule. He follows it at the local level to World level.

Judge has an event this weekend, but will send the documentation next week.


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

Frank,

I will volunteer Gabor and Andre (FCI judge I referred to) to help.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

Fine. I'll use "Lieben!!"


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

Good conversation with Frank, Nathaniel and Danny Craig at the Nationals. Confirmed what Frank and I stated above. And re-affirmed that it was existing rule, just not implemented across board.

The changes (from what I have seen and read - Frank can clarify) are more to tighten up the issue of handler help. Extra movements are eliminated.


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

So, are you supposed to give commands in a "normal" voice? 
Because I don't think that one has been enforced.

Also, using "Go Out" for the sendout is not a good idea as it is two words??


----------

