I’m back and I would like to take a few minutes of your time to look at the measuring issue from the other side. Well, if you’re a speed-reader it may only take a few minutes. I want to make it clear I am not worried that the dreaded NAFA Board of Directors is going to come after me and as such, I am back peddling from previous posts. I don’t believe Tony Soprano is a board member, at least no yet. Until then, my concern that a member of the board is going to come after me, in the dark of night, to break my kneecaps is pretty minimal.
I just don’t see the BoD getting together ringing their hands, with sinister laughs, and thinking if they could just shut Mike up they could easily implement their evil plan. (I almost wrote twisting their handlebar mustaches but then I thought one or two board members just might go Tony Soprano on my posterior. It’s up to you to decide which members might.) Also, my ego is not so large that I believe that I am having a significant impact on the outcome of this issue, or any others. I know this article is going to sound like I’m a schizophrenic with duel personalities after my previous posts. Who among you can say that I’m not? Really, I’m just struggling with the viable alternatives for a difficult issue.
My decision making process is to keep going over an issue in my mind weighing the pros and cons of the alternatives. I also like to speak to as many knowledgeable people as possible to get their input, especially if they don’t agree with me. I can be guilty of having tunnel vision. By discussing issues with those that disagree with me, it helps reduce the tendency to focus on only one side. Currently I am having a problem finding people who will discuss, in a public forum, why the wicket method provides the greatest benefit for the least cost. Thus, if no one else will argue with me, I’ll just have to argue with myself.
If you think its painful reading about my decision making process, you should try living in my head. Would any of you want to go through life this screwed up?
My reading of comments in the Flyball Blog suggests that there is a segment of the flyball community that believes or suspects that members of the board are only interested in what is best for their teams or dogs. This self-interest is controlling all decisions made on any issues related to the NAFA organization and its rules. I try not to be quite that cynical without verifiable evidence to the contrary. I admit the BoD has made some decisions that make me scratch my head in wonder. However, I have made my share of decision in the past that, in hindsight, has made me scratch my head in wonder as well. I think these decisions have contributed to my mother’s baldness and my wife’s insanity (Just kidding honey, I love you… REALLY!). I’m uncomfortable jumping to the conclusion that the BoD is out to get all of us. Mostly because if it is true my alternatives are rather limited, either I have to just shut up and take it, or I stop playing NAFA flyball. Do I seem to be a shut up and take it kind of guy? Also, I firmly believe that without a significant incentive to act otherwise most people will do the right thing if given a chance.
It is impossible to sway someone’s opinion by challenging their integrity or insulting them. Instead of swaying them to your side they will dig in their heals and stop listening no matter how valid the point. For these reasons, I chose not to get caught up in this debate. If you want to discuss the lack of integrity on the board write your own article, they’re your kneecaps.
My first stumbling block with the measurement method issue is the lack of available data from either side. Without hard data, we are left with guesses and innuendo on both sides of the debate. There is an opinion that because the caliper method, or bone measuring method is measuring the foreleg bone which leads to compensating better for different body types. That appears to make sense on the surface a dog with short legs and a deep chest would have a lower jump height. But is there any information that suggests, or better proves, that this apparent benefit applies equally to all breeds and/or body types?
I can hear the argument already, in U-FLI none of the dogs are struggling to get over the jumps the way they are in NAFA. But is it not also possible that the reason for this is that the U-FLI measurement table sets the jumps so that all dogs have significantly lower jump height than the current NAFA rules allow?
By setting the jump heights to such a low level, they have little impact on the competition, or worse, it lowers the jumps for larger/taller dogs significantly more than for the little dogs. For example, a Jack may go from jumping 8″ in NAFA to jumping 6” in U-FLI. However, a Boarder-Jack can go from jumping 11” in NAFA to jumping 7” in U-FLI. Now this 12” tall Jack must go as fast as the 15” Boarder-Jack with only a one inch advantage in jump height. Whose definition of fair are we using?
These numbers are a guess but how can it be argued that they are wrong without supporting data? As I have argued in a previous post, I don’t think it is in the best interest of NAFA to diminish the value that the small breed dogs bring to the competition. Don’t we as competitors also have a responsibility to improve the chances of achieving an accurate measurement? How many of the height dogs are able to stand for the 15 to 20 seconds that are required to get a measurement? How many clubs stress the training required to get a dog to stand for the measurement process? Are they also instructed on the methods to get the dog accustom to having a stranger stand or kneel near them while in a stand stay?
I’ll bet most of these dogs have spent countless hours being instructed on how to perform a swimmers turn on the box. A dog that cannot perform a stand stay and/or is uncomfortable around strangers is not likely going to get a favorable measurement. Does the entire responsibility rest on the tools, method, or the judge to achieve an accurate measurement? I can hear you now “But Mike, but Mike the big dogs aren’t required to do a stand stay for a judge”. No, they aren’t… Get over it. There is also a tendency for us to believe the results we like versus the results we don’t.
When one judge measures a dog at eleven inches and another judge measures the same dog at twelve inches which judge is questioned. Obviously, the judge that gave the twelve-inch measurement was wrong and has no idea what he or she is doing. If you think about it critically, the only way a judge can get a high measurement is by not setting up the wicket properly. However, there are several ways that a judge can achieve a measurement that is lower than the dog actually is, the legs aren’t perpendicular to the ground, the head is below the withers, or the handler is pulling down on the dog’s collar…
If you don’t believe me, take a 12” ruler and stand it up on the floor. Without lifting the ruler off the floor, try to get the top of it to measure more than 12” above the floor. Now tilt the ruler backwards or forwards. How hard was it to get the top of that same ruler to measure less than 12” from the floor? Remember Pythagorean’s Theorem, “A” squared plus “B” squared equals “C” squared. I’ll bet a lot of you are scratching your heads now.
The wicket wither measuring method used by NAFA appears to be a rather blunt instrument. It’s not exactly like using a chain saw and ten pound sledge to build a china cabinet. You can get there but the end result isn’t going to be pretty. But it isn’t a fine tuned micrometer which allows a measurement to the thousandth of an inch either. A thirty-second of an inch measuring error can cause an increase of a full inch in jump heights. However, is the tool used to measure the bone as accurate as a micrometer? Honestly, I don’t know I’ve never even seen what is used. I am still undecided on the best measuring method. I could make a strong argument for the other side as well.
If you haven’t put this much thought into the subject, boy I wish I were you. I don’t know if this is the logic of the board or if it is even close to representing even one member’s opinion. This is just a sample of what I have been struggling with. Can you imagine what the voices in my head sound like if the decision involves money? Just be glad you’re not me.
Mike T.P.S.
Related Post:
- No related posts
12 comments ↓
Hi gang, I have just registered and have some very strong feelings about the jump height reduction. I am one of the people that has been on the leadership Chat,requesting a lowering of heights…
So most of you already know who I am. I have height dogs and BC’s.
The story of why I am pushing this subject goes back about 3 or 4 years ago. At a tourney the jumps were set at the incorrect distance and she was jumping her correct jump height Long story short, My oldest height dog was injured, but I didn’t know how badly at the time. She is now retired. It broke her heart and mine, but it is not safe or healthy for her.
Second height dog… can single stride at 6 inches, can at 7 inches, cannot at 8 inches. It is just physically impossible for her. She is just a hair and I mean a hair at 12. So we jump 8 inches and she double steps, safer then having her barrel row thru the jumps and plowing into the 4 th jump on her way back, because she was trying to single stride, like she was taught. We worked with her for 1 1/2 years before putting her into a tourney because of this and I wanted to make sure all the growth plates where closed.
You see I play for the love of my dogs and this is one sport that we love to play together. Most people would just buy another dog… not me, my dogs are my pets first and competitors second. This by now way means I am not competitive, but safety comes first and foremost.
I feel that this proposal will make height dog’s faster and it will be safer on height dogs. Too many little dog’s are being left out, because it is not safe or healthy for htem.
<>
Well no, not quite. I am going to say….
“But Mike, where in the NAFA rulebook does it say that the height dogs* are required to be measured.”
*Excluding world record runs
I feel strongly that the jump heights should NOT be lowered, unless like Mike mentioned in a previous post, that there is some real data suggesting that dogs are being injured. I have one of those dogs that would benefit greatly from dropping the heights 1 inch. My BJ measures 15 and a hair - bummer! So when she’s run as the HD, she jumps 11s. Yes - she’s faster by as much as 4 tenths of a second over 10s, but I don’t think that’s any reason to lower the jumps. I condition her for this sport to make sure she is fit and able to jump those 11’s and, tho she’s tired at the end of the day, she’s ready to go the next morning. She’s a very athletic dog and loves nothing more than her flyball. This dog is my heart dog and I would never jeopardize her health or safety for the sake of a game, and I see no evidence that jumping those 11’s is hurting her. She just goes a bit slower because it takes a bit more effort. Again, she’s kept in great condition for this.
I think UFLI is a great alternative for someone who wants to jump their dogs lower. It’s still flyball, but with significantly lower jump heights. I don’t think NAFA needs to drop their jump heights to accommodate those who prefer lower heights. There already is an alternative. And it doesn’t have to be one or the other - if I felt my borderjack really couldn’t handle 11-inch jumps, I can still run her in NAFA with a smaller dog as HD, or I can run her over the 7s she pulls in UFLI. The point is, there are plenty of options out there already without asking one organization to change without good reason.
I must say the UFLI way of measuring was quick and easy and appeared very objective. I don’t know what their scale is for deciding length of bone to jump height. Perhaps NAFA could look into using a similar device for measurements, but change the scale to reflect higher jump heights.
I love NAFA for the challenges it presents to find those all-important height dogs - they’re the heart of the sport. And now that we have UFLI as a great alternative for those teams who either can’t find a height dog or prefer lower jumps in general, I don’t see why NAFA needs to accommodate everyone. It’s a sport, and it should be challenging. I’m not saying that all dogs shouldn’t be given an opportunity to play, but if they want to play NAFA flyball, they need to jump a little higher and be conditioned, like any athlete, to do it.
Karen,
I don’t believe I said that height dogs are required to be measured. If or when they are measured the method that is used is the wither wicket method, which I was attempting to justify as a reasonable method. However, height dogs are required to be measured if they are challenged by a competitor or judge, or if they are attempting to receive a height card. If a height dog is challenged I would want the dog prepared for the wicket, judge and there are going to be other spectators nearby as well. During a challenge isn’t when I would want my dog to first experience this procedure.
Thanks to all for your replys, at least I know someone read the article.
Actually there is at least one other way for a judge to get a higher measurement that a miss set up widget. If a judge misses the scapula of the withers and falls on either side, which can happen from time to time, you can get a lower measurement. If a dog was measured incorrectly once and another judge actually hits the right spot, the measurement can be higher. That judge will be the one “yelled at” but they actually got it right.
My concern is with finding a more reliable/consistent measuring method. Unfortunately, as Mike mentioned, some dogs just are not comfortable with a stranger touching them and will either shy away from the wicket or stand on their ‘toes’ and measure high. One of the HD’s on our team has a 2″ measuring range! Seriously… the dog will measure anywhere from 9″ jumps to 11″ jumps depending upon who measures her (male vs. female), whether the measuring judge is ‘towering’ over her or sitting on the floor himself/herself at eye level, etc.
The truly unfortunate part is depending upon how she measures for any given tournament effects not just her… but ALL the dogs on that team! Sure, the BC’s can jump 9″, 10″ or 11″ no problem… but when you have a pretty competitive team (not D1 but D2 and always striving to run faster, pass closer, etc.) you spend countless hours working them as a team. You fine tune the passes and you work on getting faster recalls, etc. Well, all that hard work can come to a screaching hault if your HD suddenly measures for 11″ jumps. Your HD’s times go down - yeah, maybe it’s only a couple tenths of a second… but that’s a lifetime when you are the person handling the 3.9 second BC that’s passing into that HD! Your ‘big’ dogs are suddenly whacking their front feet on the fronts of the jumps, your overall team times go down because passes have to be adjusted, your HD is worn out by Sunday afternoon, etc.
The simple fact that there is a ‘range’ in her heights indicates to me that there could possibly be other ways of measuring that are less stressful for fearful dogs. *And for all of you sitting there saying “Just get a height card!” We’d love to! But she hasn’t been racing a full year yet so she isn’t eligible yet.
I can’t vouch for the bone measuring system - never seen it, used it, etc. But it seems like it may have some possibilities as far as making the whole measuring process less stressful for the dogs since (from what I’ve heard - correct me if I am wrong) the handler can hold the dog during the measuring process. It also seems like that method leads to more consistent results. *Again, never seen it in action - just going by what I’ve heard.
On a side note - Kathy, unfortunately U-Fli hasn’t made it to our area yet - but we’re hoping it does over the next year or so!
We’re excited to give it a try!
When I have measured HDs in U-Fli it was a wonderful experience. I could stand there, hold my dog and even hold the leg out for measuring. It takes about 10 seconds. It was wonderful but like I have said I don’t really agree with the actual measurement you get…
My borderjack is fearful of people. My toy poodle was actually whacked in the head (accidental) by the arm of the wicket. The judge didn’t realize their strenghth. Guess what, my poodle will not go near a wicket. he cowers from them now… It would not be fair to expect him to just “get over it” when it was not his fault so I do not agree making all dogs measure.
Kim,
What do you mean by “I don’t agree with the actual measurment you get..”
I think, from reading another post of yours, you like the bone measurment, but, don’t necessarily think the jump height corresponds? or jump height too low?
No issue, just trying to figure out what you mean, and I know things can get misunderstood…
Jackie - no offense - I think the measurement is too low but love how it is done.
No offense, that is what I thought you meant, you like the way measuring is done, but the jump heights to low..I just wanted to be clear, cause “some” could interpret it differently.
All I have to say is that we are really, really not looking forward to having to NAFA measure our doxie/chi mix.
We’ve spent hours getting him used to being handled (and it’s still a work in progress) but when things go wrong for him - it takes him a million steps back.
Thank goodness we’ll run 2-3 U-Fli tournaments before then so *maybe* I can get him just a little more used to the idea of measuring.
I would love something similar to the Whippet lure coursing “saddles” Jackie spoke about in an earlier comment. They sound like less propensity for error and a more “hands off” approach for nervous dogs.
You guys are going to hate me for this qoute. I’ve watched the measuring method debate for sometime and this little excerpt of history keeps running through my head.
Nicolaus Copernicus Later censorship
Main article: Galileo affair
Sorry. I have watched the measuring method debate go on for such a long time and the argument for the wicket always comes down to, “Well we’ve used it for years and ‘everybody else’ (AKC) uses it.” My problem with this argument is a simple one. If it weren’t for new innovative ideas like those of Copernicus and Galileo, we would still think the world is flat and that the sun circles the earth. Is it possible NAFA’s wicket may not be as accurate a method of measuring? I’m not saying it isn’t as accurate I’m just wondering if it isn’t worth considering.
Is it possible it might be better? Just because it’s new doesn’t make it better. Yet, just because it’s different doesn’t make it wrong either. But unlike Galileo, as Mike said, I don’t worry too much about NAFA placing me under house arrest or calling me a heretic for saying I really do prefer the U-Fli method of measuring and I really like the fact I haven’t seen any fussing about measuring discrepencies in U-Fli either. It’s kind of nice.
Leave a Comment