I received a photo of a dog with a large chest and short legs that drives home my point on how the wicket penalizes such dogs. The photo below pictures a Labrador/Corgi mix, which weighs 60 pounds and measures 16 inches in NAFA and jumps 12-inch jumps. In U-FLI the same dog would jump 6-inch jumps. Even if NAFA adapted the 5-inch vs. 4-inch calculation, the dog would still jump 11-inch jumps.
For all of the wicket advocates out there, tell me how this is fair. I will concede that jumping 6-inch jumps may be too low but 11 or 12-inch jumps are too high for this dog. Every dog with this same make up that plays in NAFA events is being unfairly penalized.
Larry
Related Post:
47 comments ↓
excellent illustration to this point Larry.
That has been my internal debate with the wicket. Since I haven’t checked the agility guidlines in AKC, I am going to the Obedience rules which address this in Open and Utility. For dogs of certain breeds and Corgi would be one they jump 3/4 their shoulder height instead of the shoulder height to the nearest 2 inches. Gyp would jump a minimum of 22. 21.75″ Border Collie. Last show I jumped him at 24 Which is closer to his Agility jump height. Judge asked about it but did not measure. Haven’t seen anyone measure but I would guess if the judge requested it, you would have to. The problem in flyball is with training of judges and dogs we can work out most of the wicket problems except this one. If it were a purebred only sport you could do something like the AKC Obed. rules. Have been trying to figure out how to codify an exeption for dogs whose chest measurement is greater than 1/2 of the measurement at the withers. Most dogs that the leg measurement is 1/2 or greater than the measurement at the withers are fine at the current heights. Maybe turn the arm upside down and measure from the ground to the deepest part of the ribcage. ;-)This would have to be done on a raised table to keep the judge from having to lay down on the floor. How can an exeption be worded in the rules for dogs built in this way. Might subtract 6 inches instead of 4. Any method measuring from the floor to the withers will have this problem.
Sometimes pictures say more than words.
I think that even a person who had never seen flyball before would know that something is wrong.
It’s an absolute no-brainer to me, any dog with this kind of body shape is at a clear disadvantage jumping as it is currently being measured. Dogs with a higher rib cage proportionate to leg height are not handicapped to offset the disparity.( Horse racing weights their saddles for instance) I see it like going 4 wheeling in a lowrider, it can be done, but at what cost to the vehicle. How long will it last? Won’t it burn out before it should?
I worry this too, will happen to some of these dogs’ bodies if it dosen’t change soon.
What are these people missing? I’m sure someone will post something soon to explain it to me why measuring this way is perfectly fine. Honestly, I’m eager to hear the rational. My mind is open to hear other points of view. I do admit I’m a little skeptical on this one though - especially with this perfect example in the photo. Please persuade me and others who think we can make improvements for the benifits of the dogs and thier health, because that to me really is the issue.
4 wheelin’ can be fun, but this game is about speed not speed bumps - Right?
Talk about a baited bear trap! OK…..I’ll take the bait and let you all pounce on me. Is it fair to judge the wicket method by just this one dog?
The wicket didn’t do this to this dog. BREEDING did! Life isn’t fair for this dog….not just flyball.
I don’t think it’s fair that the basket is mounted so high in the NBA. I think midgets and dwarfs should have an equal chance to become stars at the game of basketball like anybody else. So, let’s petition the NBA to lower that basket so everybody can play!
I do agree with the special rules about jumping certain breeds in the AKC. Those BREEDS weren’t created for jumping. They were created for nipping heels or going down holes after vermin. When we ask dogs (in breeds) to do things that their BODY TYPE isn’t made for, then it is WE who are not being fair to the dog.
Not the sport.
Chris,
Are you actually blaming this on the dog? Do you believe the stuff that you write or are you just playing the devils advocate? Someone says White and you say Black. If you don’t agree with someone, at any level, you automatically go into attack mode whether it’s a good idea or not and play the other side. I know people that do this all the time and they are very good at it but I think you have them beat.
Do you want to keep things the way they are just because it has always done that way? I chose to work trying to find a better solution to make the sport better; you on the other hand, place all of your efforts into keep things the way they are without regard to health, safety, and welfare of our canine friends. It doesn’t make sense to me. You will always be right in your mind and the rest of us will always be wrong. It’s the way you like it.
“The wicket didn’t do this to this dog. BREEDING did! Life isn’t fair for this dog….not just flyball.”
wow. that’s harsh.
Chris,
Perhaps we should do away with wheelchair ramps and doors because people were born with physical disabilities or acquired them due to an accident? Maybe tty machines should be done away with and braille and audio books tossed out as well because deaf and blind individuals shouldn’t expect to be able to enjoy the same things that hearing and sighted people do. How can you compare this to midgets and dwarves in the NBA? That is a professional sport that people get paid for. There are a lot of very tall people that wouldn’t make it there either. Flyball is an amateur sport that bills itself as “the dog sport for all dogs.” That slogan speaks to inclusion. Maybe this dog will never run on a division 1 team, but why shouldn’t it be able to play without undue harm to itself because of the current NAFA measuring system? Because that’s the way the system has always been and it doesn’t need to be changed? If the agility and obedience rules are being changed to acknowledge the physical differences in breeds like the Corgi, then why can’t flyball? I guess because there are too many people on the board who think the status quo is a good thing.
Larry,
You are as predictable as sunrise and sunset. You say you want another view but, that is only so you can attack that view. You are right and I am wrong and you only solicit comment so you can attack.
NO WAY do I blame the dog! Read my comment again!
The question is, can the wicket (or leg bone) or ANY method measure EVERY dog fairly every time. The answer is NO. There will always be some individual for whom this is not fair. My example is the basket in basketball. Who decided at what height the basket should be placed? No doubt, this was some tall person who has it in for us short people. LOWER THAT BASKET!!!!
If you want to be completely fair to all, get out of the measuring business. 4″ below the shoulder or 5″ below the shoulder or whatever….is an arbitrary figure from the start. When the rules for flyball were written, it was written for the dogs that were running at that time. Mostly Border Collies.
I say, set the jumps where you want to jump. Declare your jump height. Forget measuring.
“I say, set the jumps where you want to jump. Declare your jump height. Forget measuring.”
Why not… that’s what the majority of the teams out there are already doing anyhow!!! (*Can you feel the sarcasm?!)
…candy cane, anybody?
…cabin fever getting you down?
eli
Thanks Eli, I needed the fresh air.
I don’t necessarily think comparing NAFA to the NBA is fair. ANYBODY can go out and play a game of basketball–just get some friends together. There are tons of community programs to play organized games of basketball. NAFA isn’t a “professional” dog sport, MOST people don’t make money off flyball. (Some are successful with seminars, but I doubt those seminars amount to being their “day jobs”) Flyball, at least at this stage of the game, is more amateur status. I guess, I am more inclined to say that it really isn’t about whether or not it is fair to this ONE dog, but more that this one dog represents a valid argument as to why some people are dissatisfied with the current measuring system. If you are happy with the wicket system–great! Many aren’t, and at some point the concerns need to be addressed for the teams that don’t necessarily run in the upper divisions. We are all “weekend warriors” and NOT professional athletes.
Other dog sports are adapting, NAFA really needs to address it, and not just say “it’s what we always have done”. I also don’t wonder if there is some reticence because another method has been introduced. Does that cause some to get their back up and defend a system just to defend it. That’s not good either. Defend it because you believe in it, not because someone else doesn’t.
It’s unfortunate people feel as if they are being attacked before they even hit the submit button. I would like to refocus here with obvious anger filtered out.
Chris, please explain again what your point in favor of the wicket is? What is the advantadge of NAFA’s method over U-Fli’s? I’m willing to listen if you could say it a little calmer.
Thanks
Julia
Although it may be harsh I do agree with Chris… this is a picture of a dog with poor confirmation… this scenario illustrates the problem with the dumbing down of dog sports - “no dog left behind” is the new U-FLI slogan.
I agree also, this dog does have poor conformation, but I guess we need to put all Corgis into this category because they are built just like this dog.
The wicket advocates obviously don’t see anything wrong with this, after all, neither methods of measuring is fair. Life isn’t fair so you just have to live with it.
I like the slogan. Of the two systems, U-FLI is the only one that allows these dogs to race at the proper jump height.
Let me see if I understand. It is wrong for NAFA to look into other methods that may increase the number of dogs measured fairly? NAFA should not try to “accomidate” as many dogs as possible by reaccessing the measuring methods and looking at alternatives such as the methods used by U-Fli?
As Danie pointed out, we do have laws for people with disabilities. The ADA law for one in which a qualified but diabled person will not be discriminated against in the hiring process. The employer may have to provide “reasonable accomidations” for these individuals. I thought the idea behind measuring was to “accomidate” as many qualilied dogs as possible, for example those who can make it up there and back even though they are often BRED to be short, sommetimes intentionally. This reasoning takes you to the next obvious question. “Should we be concerned about making the sport fair to as many dogs as possible,” and worse yet, “Should we just do away with any method that accomidates a small dog as well as those poorly bred?” This was mentioned above. The next question is, “Then should those of us with confirmationally correct, but small bred dogs, just stay home as well because they are not bred to look like a BC?”
This thinking frighens me. It reminds me of thinking seen through out history that lead down a path, I assume we all agree, is a dangerous one. Such ideas were prevalent in 1938, even in the US, when a “small in stature” German we all know was elected to office.
Many of us try to breed the “hygenically” correct dog that results in the perfect dog confirmationally or the perfect Flyball dog. My mouth waters each time I see such dogs. However, does that mean we don’t have room for anything else in the Flyball lane? Do we have no room for the victims of poor or accidental breedings in our lanes? Logically, that is the path this kind of thinking follows. Please tell me I have misinterpreted the assertations made here because they lead down a cruel and inhumane slope.
“this scenario illustrates the problem with the dumbing down of dog sports”
I have to disagree. that’s why we have divisions. so the dogs who are built for speed can play with like dogs.
if NAFA changed their measuring system to somehow make it more fair for dogs who look like this, it wouldn’t make a lick of difference to the dogs in div 1/2/3/4/5 in many regions. this dog isn’t going to miraculously become a 4.0 second speed demon. chances are a team that has this type of dog as a height dog isn’t exactly breaking world records either. however making measuring fair for dogs built like this is definitely NOT dumbing it down.
Let’s face it, the height dogs… the dogs who have to be measured in the first place, do way more work than the bigger, faster dogs. they are the ones who are jumping a large percentage of their body height. why are we so opposed to finding a better way? adjust/modify/improve a measuring system so that it’s better suited to measure height dogs? HEIGHT DOGS — not border collies. not big dogs, height dogs. yes there are border collies that are height dogs, but that’s not the majority, and in a few cases wasn’t done fairly either.
So I’m curious. Are there any other reasons why NAFA should not look into other methods of measuring? The ones I’ve seen so far are:
1. We’ve always done it that way.
2. Everybody else does it that way.
3. “Life an’t fair,” so why should NAFA attempt to be as fair as possible.
If it really is the better method, by all means, lets stick with it. But so far I haven’t seen any ideas based in reason to support the notion other methods are not worthy of looking into. If you just plain prefer it, okay by me. I just wonder if people are thinking through why they prefer it or they don’t. I’ll be honest I do prefer the U-Fli method. Perhaps that is a better approach to bringing out some solid reasons on the other side. My reasons are a bit simple.
1. It’s less stressful for dog and handler.
2. It’s been atleast 3 years now and the fights over jump heights have yet to errupt in the U-Fli venue.
Given my own reasons are simple ones, I remain open to the idea that the wicket offers something better than other methods. So please, give me a good solid thought through reason that the wicket is the way to go. I am actively searching for one worhty of logical and unbiased consideration.
The wicket system in and of itself isn’t the problem. The problem with using the wicket as an across the board measuring devise is that in flyball a quarter of an inch could matter greatly. It doesn’t just put a single dog into a new jump height, it puts a whole team into the jump height. That isn’t a bad thing but, the number of people who control the ultimate destiny of a team is pretty large. You need multiple measurements, and judges are human, bias is involved. Here on this discussion group tempers are flaring, the politics in flyball are great. It does effect the measuring. So, NAFA might consider finding a way to take the human element out of it. Just lowering the height by an inch across the board won’t solve the problem of measuring. The bias will still be there. I do understand that NAFA is trying to educate judges. I also know that this is a pretty big issue, people are screaming “fix it” but not too many proposals have been given.
Thanks Sonya! :0) That was a much more honest approach to the problem and it provides a little more meat my left sided brain can sink into. I happen to agree, changing the jump heights is a bandaid at best. Bear with me as my “scientific method” brain kicks in gear in hopes of providing a more unbiased approach to the issue.
Study Proposal: Education of judges measuring with the wicket provides more consistent results. (I would except that as a perfectly respectable axium to start with.)
First we woud need a baseline. We would take X number of judges and have them measure X number of dogs totally unknown to them. We would establish a mean measure for each dog and a standard deviation for each dog. The smaller the standard deviation, the more consistent the measurements taken.
Step 2: We would then design a “course” which would be provided to these exact same judges. The course should not vary in standard in any way for each judge. The “course” or education then becomes a constant rather than a variable.
Step 3: We take these same judges and place a new set of X number of unknown dogs in front of them to measure. We again establish the mean for each dog and the standard deviation.
Step 4: We compare the standard deviations obtained in the baseline to those calculated in step 3. If the standard deviations post education are smaller, it proves that education of the judges would provide more consisitent measuring using the wicket.
Follow?
This same approach can be applied to comparing methods. X number of judges from X number of differing organizations using different methods of measuring techniques can be placed in front of X number of dogs totally unknown to them. The judges using their diffierent method on the same dogs can be compared in the same manner. The group using the particular method with the smallest standard deviation once again is the group using the most consisitent method. Follow?
A much more complicated study could even be desgined that establishes a quatitative direct relationship between measuring techniques that provide the most consistent jump heights for the greatest number of confirmation types. The goal of course is to provide the fairest method of establishing jump height to the greatest number of dogs. That one is a harder study design, but probably possible.
Do any of these suggestions take the “bias” and “temper” out of the equation you think?
I have to admit. My only experience is the wicket and the U-Fli method. The U-Fli method automatically lends itself to a constant were the wicket provides a vairable. I think we all agree teaching a dog to stand can alter measurements obtained while there is little chance a dog can be taught to shrink it’s leg for measuring then grow it back before it goes in the lane. The judges in both remain a variable rather than a constant. Perhaps education would even the constants out a bit. I definately would be interested in the outcome of the first study and even more interested in taking those same NAFA judges from the first study to use in the second study if the outcome of the first showed more consistent measuring.
Is anybody snoring yet?
Julia
I feel there is another issue that needs to be addressed here - the majority of teams do NOT measure their height dogs! I can’t be the only person that sees this as a problem… can I??? How can we throw all the blame on the judges when at any given tournament the C.9 has a MAX of 10 dog on it? *And I play in 3 different NAFA regions during the year - so it’s not only my home region where this phenomenon is occurring.
I don’t think it’s fair to crucify the judges (and no, I am not a judge) and while implementing measurement training is a good idea for the sport in general - it too is a bandaid in my opinion. If the measuring system were foolproof as is, people would be measuring their dogs at tournaments - plain and simple! I know D1 teams that have come right out and said to me “We’ve never measured our dogs.” They just don’t worry about it.
Honestly, after playing in NAFA for several years… if I owned the corgi/lab in question… I’d likely NEVER measure him and just list him at 8″ and let someone challenge me! Let’s face it, Speedy makes a great point, a dog built like that isn’t going to be running D1 or probably even D2, maybe D3-D4 with 3 true speed dogs running with him - but who’s going to challenge him?! No one wants to be branded a ‘poor sport’ and unless he’s running in D1 the chances of him EVER getting his height challenged are slim to none! Heck… even if he is running D1 he’ll probably never get challenged! I’ve have yet to EVER see someone challenge a dogs height… in ANY division!
Is this technically cheating? Yes it is! But after watching the best teams in NAFA doing it… I say why the heck not do it too! As they say: What’s good for the goose… Heck, why not just do away with measuring all together and teams can just list whatever they want as their jump heights and if another team disagrees… then they can challenge them and the dogs will then need to be measured?! I bet you’d see some jump heights go UP vs. down. *Far fetched I know - but the current system certainly isn’t working either!
This will likely be an unpopular post - but what the heck, it’s how I feel about it!
I believe I have stated a similar sentiment in other posts…we don’t want to measure our dogs due to the stress and inconsistancy of the system (wicket). And teams that have worked a “stand” compared to other teams that have not…there just has to be a better method. I don’t have any ideas personally, but, there are alot of innovative people in flyball, as well as alot of vets and engineers that I am sure could come up with an idea.
I don’t think it is such a big deal if you don’t measure, since you will run the risk of being challanged. But, quite frankly, do you really pay attention to what the other team is jumping? I really don’t. I run in D1 in R4 - and I could not tell you the jump heights to the other teams in D1.
I liked Julia’s study proposal.
BC-Rescue Mom
I am not at all opposed to the ideas you presented. I just wonder if it would cure the problem. The questions raised by comeptitors are: 1. The consistency of the judges and, 2: The consistency of the method. Wheather we measure each tourney, don’t measure unless challenged or measure by choice as we do now; the question of accuracy may still arise.
Competitors may still complain the judge measured wrong or the wicket itself makes measuring a little more difficult to attain a consistent measurement. As I pointed out, in any method used, the judge is a variable and not a constant. How I personally feel about the judges measuring is irrelevant to my suggestion of study one. I suggest it because competitors have sited it as a point of contention. I suggested Study two to remove the question of the consistency of the wicket itself as that question has been raised.
I am suggesting a totally analytical and unbiased approach that provides hard data that is undeniable for competitors, wheather we measure each tourney, wheather we only measure when challenged or wheather we continue to measure at our own discretion.
Follow?
Thanks Jackie. :0) I was afraid everybody would go, “What?”
Julia
Julia - I ‘follow’ and I’m certainly not against more training and better training for the judges. However, IMO under the current measurement system I don’t think there is a cure. There’s just too much variance from person to person and dog to dog with the wicket method. I think the system needs to be completely revamped or we will continue to see the same issues resurface again and again. But this is purely my opinion and I certainly respect anyone who is willing to offer suggestions, etc.
*It’s not easy to throw suggestions out there without people attacking you.
In response to Jackie - have you ever been in a position where you left a team and the Captain of that team was out to get you? If you haven’t, consider yourself lucky. I have, and up until that time I never ‘noticed’ what people were jumping and I too was racing D1 and R1.
I was ‘advised’ by a friend to be sure and measure my height dog as my previous Captain was going to challenge us if we opted not to measure knowing my height dog was very spooky and could measure anywhere from 9″ to 11″ inches (not the judge’s fault - the dog’s fault). I measured the dog and sure enough he came in at 11″. He was measured by the exact same judge that measured him a month earlier at 9″ but he was very nervous this time around and came in high (likely standing on his toes and no doubt picking up on MY tension from all the political BS of suddenly being a ‘flyball outcast’ simply for choosing to leave my previous team!).
Anyhow, it was at that point in time that I ‘noticed’ how many dogs were jumping ridiculously low jump heights (in ALL divisions). I went to check the C.9 to see if any of the dogs I felt were jumping too low had been measured and not a single one had been measured! And one of the dogs in question was on our RD’s team. I never noticed jump heights until I was put in a position of being questioned. Now could I have challenged all the teams (in my division) and likely won? Yup… but what would that have gotten me besides more ‘Outcast of the Year’ votes? Unfortunately, due to the nature of the sport (it kind of reminds me of being in High School all over again!) it’s much easier to remain a silent spectator at times.
What it boils down to for me is the system is flawed as is and needs to change. For whatever reason it seems (to me anyhow) that NAFA is not going to even entertain the U-Fli method of measuring even though it seems to be more accurate and reliable. I certainly have my own opinions as to why the BOD won’t entertain the U-Fli method - but I’ve already taken my beating for the day so I will just let that fall by the wayside this time around.
Yes, I have been “watched” when measuring my dogs…I lived thru the “video taping brigade” of Reg 16/6…imagine, having 4, 5 sometimes 6 cameras on you whenever you measured your dogs! I had a boderline 12/13 inch dog - she was truely a 12, but would not stop wagging for the judge so we got 13 on the line - and I had a judge once get a 15 on her!(I suspect the judge for many reasons…but that is another topic). So yes, I totally understand your delima, and apprciate the position you endure in R1.
As I have been saying, there are just too many inconsistancies surrounding the wicket. You should know eactly what your dog is going to measure each and every time you do so…
BC-Rescue-Mom,
I hope I didn’t make you feel I was beating you! Actually, I definately agree with you. The system is a mess. And I certainly think your question about when we are required to measure is a valid one worth consideration. We have worried about challenges from X-team mates before as well. And man have we gotten inconsistent measurements with the wicket. I am in favor of the U-Fli method actually. But I am willing to admit I could be wrong becuase I have no unbiased data to base that opinion on. I do feel that it’s basic nature reduces the variables and increases the constants. That in itself dictates, logically, that it is more consistent. The more variables present, the more chances for inconsistences. The more constants, the less chances for inconsistencies. That’s just plain logic.
But with all the debate surrounding the wicket issue, a cold hard analysis in a scietific way puts away personal preferences on both sides and PROVES which is most consistent in a manner hard to dispute. So I am willing to put aside what may seem obvious to me and put methods of measuring to the test.
To keep everybody on the same page without bias or anger, why not prove which method (NAFA, U-Fli or others) is the most consisitent in a non-biased and analytical manner? If we jump over establishing which method is the most consistent in an undeniably proven manner, questions like when we are required to measure and changes in jump heights are based on the unproven hypothesis that our current method of measuring is consistent. That accomplishes nothing to resolve the debate that continually plaques NAFA.
That is why I propose we approach the problems NAFA has with these issues as scientifically as possible. It just plain does away with the screaming matches.
Step 1: Establish and adopt which measuring system is the most consistent.
Step 2: Then answer the questions you raised. Do we measure once? Do we measure each tourney? Do we measure when challenged or a WR is set?
Step 3: Review the need to change the jump heights as they relate to measuring. This would probably be an arbitrary decision left up to the delegates.
I guess what I am saying is, the first thing we need to establish is which method yields the most consistent measurements in as unemotional and in as detatched a way as we can. Then the answer to questions like wheather we should measure once, each tourney or by our current system become more relative and meaningful. The question of how our jump heights relate to measurements also become more relavent after questions one and 2 are dealt with.
I feel we, NAFA BOD and competitors alike, are skipping a step by proposing changes in jump heights and changing policy on when we are required to measure if we do not first establish which method of measuring available is the most consistent in a manner that is nondebatable by hard core nonemotional scientific data.
My goal, as yours, is to go play the game with less chance for gruges and bias to intefere with a a great time. :0)
Julia
I know I’m coming into this discussion late, but is the owner of the corgi-lab wanting to run this dog as a hight dog, or is this just to illustrate the differences in NAFA vs UFli?
I don’t agree that NAFA should lower their heights. I like having the two venues, even if U-Fli is hard for me to get to. The dogs like the lab-corgi can be hight-dogs with lower jumps in U-Fli, and still run in NAFA with low jumps if a shorter dog is also on the team. I personally feel that owners should keep in mind their dog’s conformation for any athletic endevor, be it obed, agility or flyball, and match the venue for the dog’s safety and longevity. If one organization suits you better, vote with your entires.
I understand about not having conventional hight dogs on a team, for years our height-dog was my cattle dog that jumped 13″-14″ (yes, depended on who measured her) and having a JRT join us droped the jumps 5″-6″ and our time a second or so. But I feel that’s part of the sport, you play the hand you’re delt, or the dogs you have, and dogs that struggle as hight-dogs in NAFA can have a much easier time in U-Fli. Something for everyone without making everything the same…
Just my persona feelings..
I may be wrong, but I see a common theme: “depending on who meausred them” coming into play. First, i do not thing a single judge goes to the measuring ring and says “I am going to measure such and such at whatever inches today.” I honestly believe that EVERY judge I have come into contact with does the best that he or she can at the moment. I don’t believe that anyone intentionally cheats. I know some will argue with that, but I do not believe it. Having said that, I do believe that some have a bias. That bias will do what cheating doesn’t: give the extra inch for the jump height. Unless you take the judge out of the equation , nothing , long term will change. I don’t care who measures with what method, someone will claim bias. Unless the human interpretation is out of the equation, nothing will change. Even then, I have doubt, the system of measuring is so ingrained, that nothing will change it. Which is sad, it pits teams against former teams, over a couple of inches. Flyball is just as cold blooded as any war ever fought. I lost a very best friend because i tried UFli, not a very good emissary for NAFa, huh? Yeah, you can say she wasn’t really a friend, but she’ll say I abandoned flyball–no body wins, the dogs lose
Sonya,
I am so sorry about you and your friend. I agree. Flyball can be a bit bloody at times. I have a few battle scars of my own. But for now, I want to put them aside and look for a way to address an issue that has left the NAFA Flyballers in constant turmoil. BTW, can you tell I am stuck at work on Christmas Eve?
As I said, you are correct. The “human” factor remains a variable in any measuring method used. That is why I suggested a study to see if education of judges really helped that issue in my initial response to you. A smaller standard deviation post “a standardized course” would prove without question that education makes a difference. I am of course assuming no intent to cheat. You CAN emphatically establish through cold analysis if education helps.
You can also, through analysis, establish whithout question which method is the most consistent. The judge is a variable, as you said, in any method used. But the method is not. Cold hard comparison between methods used can be done and statistically compared to provide a definitive answer.
The more we use a “scientific method” approach to analyzing the measuring issue, the less emotional it will be. Yes, arguing may still errupt over the “human” factor. But atleast you can give the Flyball public less debatable issues to squable over by applying a little detatched assesment of the situation. You can’t argue with good solidly designed studies that provide cold hard data.
As to wheather or not Utopia will then exist in Flyball, well of course it wont. It isn’t the nature of the sport or mankind in general. But perhaps if we take this chance to make just one thing better there will be one less fight tomorrow than there was today.
I hope your Christmas brightens things up a bit for you. All the best from my critters to yours,
Julia
“It’s unfortunate people feel as if they are being attacked before they even hit the submit button. I would like to refocus here with obvious anger filtered out.
Chris, please explain again what your point in favor of the wicket is? What is the advantadge of NAFA’s method over U-Fli’s? I’m willing to listen if you could say it a little calmer.”
Thank you, Julia.
There is no “advantage” of NAFA’s method over U-Fli’s. Choosing what is “right” for NAFA shouldn’t be a “popularity contest”.
I decided to write a post about all of this on my blog. I will quote from my article:
“More and more, I think the solution just may be a radical departure from the “status quo”. I don’t believe that keeping the wicket is in NAFA’s best interest. I also don’t believe that measuring the leg bone will resolve these issues either. Debating “which” method is better is also leading us further down the “measuring” rabbit hole.”
Chris,
excellant ideas on your blog. I have also been thinking - what should/could they do? I was thinking a possible idea - is jump heights based on breed - jrts - jump 8; BC jumps 13; toy breeds 7; Corgis 7; SBT’s 9;
I had not gotten to the point of how to deal with the dogs bred for the sport - like the BorderStaffy/BorderJacks etc, but thought why not split it down the middle - if you have SBT’s jumping say 8 or 9 and BC’s 13 - BorderStaffies 10 or 11?
Just some of my thoughts…
Jackie
That’s an interesting idea, Jackie. now NAFA would have to do some “leg” work to come up with a standardized jump height for a breed. And of course there is still going to be issues over it. Maybe people can choose to not measure and take the breed standard OR measure for a lower jump height?
But what to we do with the mixed breed? There are a number of standard mixed breed in flyball but we’ve got 2 that may cause a bit of confusion.
One of our current height dogs is a Border/Corgi (Borgi). She jumps an 8″ in U-Fli and 11″ in Nafa. If her breed mix gives us a higher jump height under this idea - could we just stick with her wicket measured height?
Another is our Chihuahua/Doxie mix. I’d probably be happy with the average of those breed jump heights since I doubt many Chis or Doxies are jump more than 6″. But if for some wacky reason, he gets assigned an 8′ (or higher?) then we’d have to figure something else out - he’s simply not that big.
He’s also a handling concern - I’d hate for one bad measuring moment to totally shut him down before he competes for the first time. It’ would be nice to take out one more stressful situation for a new dog. and just declare that jump height.
ah, the little guy. I never thought about measuring until we got our little dog!
After years of going thru NAFA measuring I saw a lot of, well let’s just call it favoritism. In particular an RD & judge who could make your measuring easy or painful, very painful.
I train my dogs to do a very nice, calm stand, it’s just rock solid, the dogs are comfy and happy. They have to stand for agility too, so they are pretty experienced at this thing. They aren’t borderline dogs. So I’m in line, the judge is whipping thru dogs, then we get to us, no problem same old same old, but no…the RD made us move move, head up, head down, higher, lower, move that leg, that leg, the other leg, now that front legs, further, further. I was about to blow a gasket b/c my very calm dog was getting stretched out of position (yah know the official NAFA position with all 4 feet firmly on the floor!). At one point I thought he’d fall over b/c he was so out of balance. He leaned, then he had to be reset and off we go again, head up, head down, move 1 leg etc. Finally the judge looks up at the RD and with much disgust says, You’ve gotta be kidding me, this dog is an easy measure and you keep having her move the dog out of position. We had spent about 10 minutes with this whole ordeal while about 15 dogs were in line waiting. At first people were like oh, hard to measure, then you started hearing lots of comments because everytime the dog was prefectly set, the RD would make me move the dog. Several people had left the line with their dogs. So all that & we got our usual measure. The next dogs, just all speeded thru measuring, with none of this BS! I never had so many people come up to me after measuring to commiserate with how poorly I was treated. The JUDGE came up & apologizied to me, saying that he didn’t realize what the RD was up to until it was too late.
So why not video tape or complain to NAFA? Well NAFA is far far away & this person is at most tournaments and would make your life HELLISH. How does one prove intimidation? Does NAFA believe 1 nobody over an empowered person? This person’s friends would rush to support them while everyone else just cowers & tries to avoid making waves. Nevermind the wicket, how do you fix that?? U-Fli, not a dang thing they can do, you stick out the dog’s leg, nobody is trying to intimidate the dog or the handler, it was the most pleasant measuring experience I’ve ever had. I actually felt like it was fair!
That’s certainly one good idea Jackie. Jump heights based on breeding or confimation types. Hummm…. Interesting solution worth some considerating Jackie.
I just feel we are skipping a step by adjusting jump heights without addressing what folks are REALLY fussing about and that is the measurement technique itself. If we stick to some type of measuring, I really know it sounds a little alien to folks; but, I do believe the best approach is to analyze every method we can get our hands on and establish from the data which is really the most consistent. I’m not sure most doggie folks are interested in such an analytical idea but given my left sided brain, I just can’t help but think that way.
Chris-I will definately check out your blog after I get a little more work done this evening, especially on this issue! Did any of my other posts here give you an idea of where I am coming from? I was afraid most found them rambling as I rarely post and I tend to look at everything like a slide ruler!
Thanks
Julia
Chris,
I read over your article. Novel idea indeed but instinct tells me when given the choice nobody will opt for 14 inches. :0) You are right the whole idea of WRs would have to be redidesigned.
If you think this is a decent proposal, I suggest NAFA have an outside source, not your site or anybody elses poll comeptitors to see what they would choose to jump. I see measuring as I stated above in one of my posts, a “reasonalble accomidation” made for the little ones. Also, I asked above, have I misconstrued the intent of measuring all together? Any answers?
That is why I suggested we get some hard data no matter what type of measuring wins out, or if we use any at all. I’m looking for hard facts. I suggested a way to get some on all kinds of measuring, not just U-Fli or NAFA. Do you have a way to establish with hard numbers that declaring jump heights will cure the problem and not kill the height dog? I need hard facts….just my nature. Do you have any method design approach in mind to obtain scientifically hard core data? Any ideas at all that might show you are correct statistically are welcome. My left brain feeds on numbers. :0)
I guess at this point I am looking more for hard proof than opinions on curing the measuring debate that “hounds” us all.
Julia
Looking for some solutions to this dilemma that measuring seems to create. Couldn’t we somehow invent a measuring system that uses the same sensor that the EMS timing devices use? One that as it sensed the dog’s (shoulder or other measuring point), would register a height? This way, the one measuring device wouldn’t even have to touch the dog and the owner could get the dog to stand in a normal relaxed way. The EMS systems read from a distance away( don’t know the distance off the top of my head) The sensor could also read the clearance from chest to ground and a jump height should be determined using both equasions to add up to a safe jumping height for the dogs. I feel it could eleviate some of the discrepencies with the people in charge of measuring if it was done with a lesser chance of bias. This is just a thought for you brilliant minds out there who can invent things.
On another note: the person who said something about the dog’s breeding being at fault….I’ve seen MANY MANY handlers whose “breeding” or body style don’t exactly conform to what most people think are athletic standards. Myself included.I think you know where I’m going here….
These dogs with low rib cages most likely won’t be breaking Div 1 records , but they do deserve to jump at a height that is safe for thier body type. Be fair.
Yes, I have had a few private emails concerning this (Electronic Measuring System) and the information that I have is that this was even suggested to the BOD sometime back and was deemed too expensive. It was a system where the dog was walked down a path in front of the system i.e. through sensors while several different measurements were recorded. The information is then sent to a laptop computer and run through some algorithm where the correct jump height is given.
This does sound like the best solution but cost is a large factor, and then an additional expense for shipping another device along with the lights. However, this probably needs to be re-looked at.
Don’t get me started on lights!
But, I would think at least a trial verison should be explored…and then have one for each region - (as there should be a set of lights for each region - housed with the RD).
I would LOVE to put such a method to the test. Is that what somebody meant when they mentioned the laser method to me? Also, wouldn’t that get rid of the “human” factor mentioned above? Might be nice for our poor war ravaged judges. They could prove consistency in the method in but one hour at one tourney. Seems like investigating such a system would, logically speaking, reduce the variables dramatically which means more consistent measuring.
Is it really just totally cost prohibitive? Anybody know how much it might cost to build such a system? If NAFA makes enough to revamp the EJS system, I don’t see why they wouldn’t investigate this system and then invest in it if it yields more consistency in measuring. It sounds like it reduces the “human” wariable. It could be easily evaluated for comparison if enough judges were at a tourney to measure with the wicket and then compare it against measurements obtained with this method.
Yes, this sounds like an idea quite worthy of consideration. After all, this constant concern over measuring for those of us with height dogs may lead to staying home just to avoid the whole thing. Just doesn’t seem worth the stress, especailly if they will have a jump height of 12 inches today and 10 nches tomorrow. If it truly is a more consistent method, it might actually SAVE NAFA more money than that lost in revenues from the worn out and frustrated height dog competitors.
I love the idea of an electronic measuring system and I agree that they should consider investing in 1 system to start and try it out. If it works then they can slowly purchase them for each region as they did with the EJS lights. I also like Julia’s idea of using both the electronic measuring system along with having judges measuring as a form of judge training and a great check/balance and understanding of how the ‘human factor’ effects some dogs. Plus, let’s face it, we still need to train judges to measure… the EJS system sometimes goes on the fritz as I’m sure the electronic measuring system will from time to time as well and it may be in the hands of humans at times.
Anyone else have any feelings about why the BOD may have poo-pooed this idea (other than cost)?
I have also heard of this electronic measuring system. My problem with it is the fact that I have watched dogs walking up to the wicket and be visable shrinking as they get close and then growing taller as they leave. What is to prevent this happening with the electronic system? Also with the electronic system what part are you going to measuring when they are walking? Hairy dogs are going to be very hard to measure when walking.
What is needed is something that is not trainable. The leg measurement in U-Fli works well because there is no training, no variable, no way of changing it (unless you want to do surgery to shorten their legs), and less stress for all. I have talked with quite a few people on fixes for this (including several vets and they have gotten experts involved) and haven’t been able to come up with anything.
“Anyone else have any feelings about why the BOD may have poo-pooed this idea (other than cost)?”
I have some limited information on this but I’m still working on the details. Right now I don’t think there was a formal proposal. I will let you know as soon as I have more information.
“If you think this is a decent proposal, I suggest NAFA have an outside source, not your site or anybody elses poll comeptitors to see what they would choose to jump.”
Julia,
I DO believe this is a decent proposal. I believe that it is reasonable for NAFA to gather data to determine support for the idea that is independent of of my site or anybody else’s. What I need is support from several individuals from different areas of the country that would be willing to put their name, Region and club affiliation on such a request to NAFA. One individual making such a request could easily be denied. Having several respected named individuals making such a request would receive attention.
If you or anybody else would like to join me and petition the NAFA BoD to investigate support for my proposal, put “Declare Your Jump Height” in the subject line and please contact me at:
chrisandblast@hotmail.com
Chris,
This exact proposal (declare your jump height) has already been presented to the bod by past bod member Todd Morningstar. The bod showed no interest in it is my understanding. I also understand that it was originally Dan Phillips that presented the idea to Todd.
Judy,
Thank you for confirming that. Since Todd presented the idea when I was in attendance at a meeting over three years ago, the make up of the NAFA BoD has changed. Todd, Glenn and Jeff have left the BoD and Mike, Dana, Lisa and Alisa have joined. The concept may be received very differently now then it was the first time.
What I am asking is NOT that the NAFA BoD adopt “declare your jump height” but, conduct a scientific and independent poll to find out if there is any support for the idea by the flyball public.
The Board might feel more obligated to conduct such a poll (NON-binding) if requested to do so by several people. Ideally, it would be hard to ignore if we had at least one club owner from each Region put their name to such a request. If it is denied and the Board doesn’t even want to conduct a poll (not a “ballot” not an election) then I will make that public knowledge.
This is a radical idea. It takes time to educate people and nurture support for something that is so different from what we’ve done in the past.
chrisandblast@hotmail.com
Hi,
I’m new here and just reading the comments. I’m not sure i understand what is the problem in regards to measuring. This all has to do with the height of the dog not how large the dogs chest is. If we were to lower a jump because of the dogs chest…then someone else will have a reason to lower the jump…where does it end????
I have a pug racing in NAFA and it seems just fine.
Nat
I think you have missed the point. It’s not only the depth of the chest it’s the combination of deep chest and short legs that is the problem. You could have a dog with 6 inch legs measure 15 inches at the withers. Compare that to another 15 inch dog that has a shallow chest with longer legs. Both dogs will jump the same height jumps but the short legged dog is at a disadvantage.
Leave a Comment