Nicolaus Copernicus Later censorship

Main article: Galileo affair

In 1616, in connection with the Galileo affair, the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregation of the Index suspended De revolutionibus until it could be “corrected,” on the grounds that the Pythagorean doctrine that the Earth revolved about an immobile Sun was “false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture.” The corrections, omitting or altering nine sentences, were issued four years later, in 1620. The same edict also prohibited any work that defended the mobility of the Earth or the immobility of the Sun, or that attempted to reconcile these assertions with Scripture.

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.

In 1633 Galileo Galilei was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for “following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture,” and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.

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.

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.

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…

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.

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!

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.

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.