Entries from September 2007 ↓

In my last couple of posts and comments, I have been somewhat critical of the NAFA board and the rules committee and I would like to step back for a minute and reevaluate my stance on the box issue. In the heat of discussion sometimes, we can lose some of our perspective by letting one vision cloud our judgment.

In all fairness to the people on the board and rules committee, I think they deserve the benefit of a second look into their position. I think that many people, myself included, looking at the box in my post, Technically Legal, for the first time thought “My god, how can this be legal?” I know that I did.

Looking back at the minutes and reading them a second and third time, I find that everyone on the board wanted to do something but could not agree on the wording for a new rule. I think the last paragraph of this discussion tells it all:

There was further discussion about whether possible alternative language could be created. Several Board members had concerns about the inability to draft language that would prohibit this type of box, but would not inhibit future innovative box design.

At this point in my post, I had to leave to attend church and now that I am back, I see that Chris VanWert wrote a small book in the comment section of the post, Technically Legal. I knew that she had attended the meeting because I read it in the minutes. I wonder why we are only just now finding out details of the meeting through Chris. I broke this story a couple days before the minutes were posted. Regardless of that, I would like to take Chris up on her suggestion. She says that, “Larry presumes that certain Board members voted against fixing the problem. Maybe, what they actually voted against was a BAD fix. How do we know what the reasons were for their vote until we ASK them? “

Well, how do we do this? I have been reading transcripts of chat sessions and meeting minutes since I started in flyball and I can probably count on one hand the number of times that any board member has explained his or her vote on any issue. Every so often, you will find one of them commenting on the Flyball List, but it is not very common. So I invite any one of the board members to come forward and tell why they voted the way they did.

As for me, I am finding that it is hard to be in the middle of something and remain neutral and objective. I will try to do a better job of that in the future.

Larry

I am so glad that the NAFA delegates voted to allow the NAFA board to “…explore the pick-up team concept further.” The voting results show that 773 (71.2%) delegate votes were in favor of the board developing rules for pick-up teams, while 291 (26.8%) where not in favor of the proposal.

While I completely support the addition of these two concepts, I have some problems with the way they are being implemented during this trial period. I am sure the rules committee tried to do the right thing when creating these rules but in my opinion they have old NAFA ideas and they are stuck in this mindset.

Open Class

If you have not read the rules for this new class, I will try to give you a quick overview. This class allows dogs from other clubs/teams to run together as a team. The 87-day rule does not apply to the dogs racing on an Open Class team and therefore the dog’s club affiliation is not affected by running on an Open Class team. The dogs on the team still earn racing points, but an Open Class team cannot set a world record and no regional placement points are awarded. It seems that Open Class teams can only compete against other Open Class teams or a Veteran Class team but no other team. When an Open Class team competes against a Veteran Class team, the rules governing the Veteran Class team take precedence. Dogs running on an Open Class team can run on one other team from a different class.

The highlighted area is where I have a problem. Since an Open Class team is no different from a Regular Class team, why can’t they run against other like teams in the same division? What fun is that if you cannot run in a division with like teams? Why did we need another class? It could have been called Regular Open with the team seeded and raced against other teams in the same division.

Performance Teams

Most of the same rules apply to Performance Teams as in the Open Class i.e. the dogs running on the team earn racing points, the 87-day rule does not apply and the dog’s club affiliation status is not affect for dogs running on a Performance Team, and Performance Teams cannot set a world record and no regional placement points are awarded.

The Performance Team was created to allow a team that has entered a tournament and then finds that they cannot field a team because of extenuating circumstances. The rules give some examples of these circumstances such as dog injury, illness, or other unforeseen situations. However, in order to change the team status to Performance Team the unforeseen situation must be brought to the attentions of the Tournament Director before the start of racing. The rules do not cover dogs that are injured or become sick during the tournament.

I my opinion this is a good rule but it could have gone one-step further and allowed for sick or injured dogs during the tournament. If something happens to a team dog during the tournament the team is no better off than it was before. If they only have four dogs on the team and one goes down, they just have to sit out the rest of the tournament just as they do now.

Conclusion

I suppose the delegates that voted in favor of this should be happy because it is a step in the right direction. However, it does leave me wondering about the leadership on the board and the rules committee. If you read my last post, Technically Legal, and are of the opinion that the box should not be legal, you may, as I do, start to question the thinking of this committee and the board. My information is that one person from the rules committee and one board member approved the box. Maybe it is time for the people that have served the longest in these positions step down so that newer fresher blood can serve in these positions. What do you think?

Larry

Addendum

I was just reading the board minutes from the Board of Directors meeting in Detroit, MI on August 25th and find that in section 11 of the minutes the box in question was discussed at some length. To see who voted against rule changes that would have corrected this problem, please see the board minutes. I see that two people on the board that voted against rule changes are up for reelection. Additionally, the person that owns the box is running for the board. Please let your future votes reflect how you feel about this and other issues.

You Make the Call

Click on photo for larger view.

Someone sent me this photo of a flyball box that is used during flyball tournaments. They did not specify in which organization this box is used, NAFA or U-FLI, but I have to assume it is NAFA, because in my view of the rules this would not fly (pardon the pun) in U-FLI. I guess it is technically legal based on the current NAFA rules but might be on the verge of stretching them a bit.

This is what the NAFA rulebook says about the flyball box in Chapter 1, Section 1.1 (e):

(e) Boxes:
(i) Shall not exceed 24 inches in width, nor 18 inches in height from the bottom surface of the box excluding mat grabbing devices/materials and outdoor staking devices;
(ii) The body of the box shall not exceed 30 inches in depth;
(iii) The base of the box upon which the boxloader stands may exceed 30 inches in depth;
(iv) Mat grabbing devices/materials shall not raise the box by more than one half inch;
(v) The box shall not exceed these dimensions at any time during racing (including any permanent attachments to the box, i.e. carrying handles, cocking devices).

I think the subparagraph that makes this technically legal is (iii) because the part where the boxloader stands can exceed the 30 inch depth of the overall box. Nothing in the rulebook says where the 30 inch depth begins or ends.

The U-FLI rulebook would not allow this box because the overall depth of the box cannot exceed 30 inches and the 30 inch depth includes the part where the boxloader stands.

Clarification on the Poll question and answers:

Should NAFA change the rules on flyball boxes?

1. Yes
2. No
3. Based on the current rules the box is illegal
4. Not Sure

 Loading …

You Make the Call – Would you like to have your questions or problems answered in the poll? Just send me the all the details using the contact form and I will do the rest.

Larry