Announcements from NAFA Board of Directors Meeting
November 30, 2007 – Omaha, NE
A proposal exists to change NAFA Rule 8.2a to provide that jump heights will be set by subtracting five instead of four inches from the height at the withers of the shortest dog running, to a minimum jump height of seven inches.
The Board of Directors is calling for a delegate vote on this topic. The proposed issue is being published to the delegates for a three month comment period, after which a vote will be called. For the motion to pass, it must be supported by 2/3 of the delegates voting.
This is sure to be a hot button issue over the next few months. This is my first post on this issue and there are already comments about this on the blog. Here is what Mike says…
… My concern is that the outcome for this rule change is going to be determined on supposition and emotions without substantiated reasons for either alternative. If there is any hard data that indicates that the jump heights is causing or contributing to health problems for our dogs, then I’m on board the rule should be changed. However, if the rule change is being proposed because some clubs can’t find, train, or just don’t want to deal with a height dog, the rule should not be changed….
You can read his full comment here.
Jackie points out that NAFA may be trying to fix the wrong problem…
My problem now with this new proposal is it is a Band-Aid for the problem they don’t want to deal with – developing or creating a new way to measure altogether. Measuring inaccuracies have been an issue since teams started getting faster and faster, and using heights dogs bred for the sport. I can’t believe that this has never been the top priority….
You can read her full comment here.
My Opinion
I agree with both comments. In my post Jump Heights, I think when NAFA lower their jump heights to the current settings (minimum of 7 inches and the maximum of 14 inches) they got it right. So, I agree with Mike that changing the formula by subtracting 5 inches instead of 4 inches would be a mistake. This is just a knee jerk reaction to the wrong problem, which leads me to Jackie’s comment, the “M” word.
I am sure that everyone is well aware of my problem with measuring inaccuracies and if you are not, you need to reread my post titled, Measuring. The U-FLI measuring system may not be the answer for NAFA but the bone measuring system is fast and much more precise than the wicket. Maybe a combination of the two systems could be employed by NAFA. Height dogs could be measured using a system similar to U-FLI, i.e. measure the leg bone up to x number of inches, and all the other dogs using the wicket. Aren’t we all mostly concerned with the height dog anyway? Using a wicket on a short-legged large chested dog, like a Corgi or Dachshund, is not fair for obvious reasons.
I am sure everyone has their own thoughts on this issue and I would like to hear them.
Larry
39 comments ↓
I have a question: in agility, for example, dogs are measured with the wicket. Dogs are then classified according to height groups in four inch increments. Do I understand correctly? And dogs compete against other dogs in the height group. A 20″ dog competes against a max height 23″?
In NAFA, they measure with the wicket, to the nearest inch, then race teams running 7″ against teams running 16″? Agility folks use the wicket for a different purpose, with different results: it is not used to handicap or advantage competitors.
How does five inches versus four inches change the game? I did not see provision for a fifteen inch max height?
I have another question that has really been bugging me: does anybody know how it would change the sport if everyone ran flyball at, say, 8 inches? Think about it carefully, based on what you see running today.
Last question: maybe if a “few people” asked the Board to consider lowering the max height, they would put it to a delegate vote?
I wrote this last night with two terriers in my lap.
I do know the current max height in NAFA is 14″, not 16″.
All jump height to 8 inches… yes that would really change the game… Lower heights has very little to with whats “best” for the dogs and more about how fast a team thinks they can go. Since UFLI has been so successful I think that there is room for another organization — maybe called NOFLI — where we dont even have jumps, just a box. Think about it carefully – dont you think that would be totally awesome!!!
Eli, in AKC a 20″ dog can jump 20″… or it can jump *up* to 24 or even 26″ — the heights are in 4″ increments with the DOG heights in 4″ increments but not on the same numbers (see AKC rules for exact brackets). USDAA has different brackets, and a three match measuring system…
Anyway, I’m not particularly in favor of *all 8 inch* jumps, or even NO jumps…. but I also agree NAFA is dodging the real issue… they insist on allowing the hit-and-miss method of measuring to contine. I try not to measure under some judges — they measure hair. I would love to see NAFA establish *measuring judges* not necessarily *supervising* judges (unless scrupuously re-trained) who take ONE measurement that stays official, like a height card. Some tourneys would have long lines for measuring but some wouldn’t even have any. Method of measure ?? I have no problem with a wicket IF they all know how to use it. I have no problem with the caliper either…. we need a consistency that just isn’t there.
What is the intent of the rule change? Does the proposed rule change accomplish that intent? Are there other unintended consequences from the rule change that out weight the value of the original intent? Without this most basic information how are the clubs suppose to make an informed decision?
These issues make a long winded, anal retentive perfectionist like me completely crazy. I’m not even talking about nuances. I just want to know the answer to the basic question “WHY?”
In my most humble opinion, although I admit I have no data to support this hypothesis, there is a significant concern in the NAFA community that the current rules are not creating a level playing field. I think that there can be a reasonable argument made that NAFA is abdicating their authority to the competitors. It is up to the competitors to police the legitimacy of their opponents jump heights. But we are comprised of individuals that love our dogs and enjoy the sport of flyball. Therefore, what team or club wants to be known as being so competitive that they challenged the honesty and integrity of a team they compete against every week, month, year. Flyball has two components, the competition of trying to out run your opponent, and two, the social friendships made with other people that love dogs and flyball. Therefore, it is difficult to challenge the integrity of a competitor when you also want to enjoy and adult beverage or two with those same people when the competition is done. It comes down to what is more important, winning the competition or the friendships gained… or lost.
If the intent is to level the playing field than I am most adamantly against the proposed rule change as it will do nothing to level the playing field. All this rule change will accomplish is diminishing the value of our vertically challenged dogs. If you do not see the value in the vertically challenged, jump 14 inches, under the current rules this is your option. I believe that the jump height set by the smallest dog brings an interesting challenge to flyball that is going to be lost if the rules keep going in this direction. Instead of bringing more diversity to the sport all the teams will look the same.
Disclaimer, I ran in my first flyball tournament in 1997 with a Great Dane, I currently run a Belgian Tervuren. Every dog I have run or am currently running went the same speed over 16 inch jumps as with 7 or 8 inch jumps. I am not trying to protect the position of my dog on any team. However, having run a Great Dane I know a bit about being discriminated against based on the size of your dog. But I digress.
No matter what measuring method that is chosen there will always be that dog that falls right on the boarder line. The accuracy and consistency of the person doing the measuring and the tool used are going play a part in the sport. By NAFA rules the dog that measures 15 63/64 of an inch to the withers is always going to pose a problem. In U-FLI the dog that has a 6 63/64 inch measurement between the elbow and the Accessory Carpal bone will also be problematic. My understanding is that U-FLI measuring method significantly reduces the value of a small dog. As indicated in Kathy’s post in “Voting Analysis” stating that her Border-Jack jumps 11 inches in NAFA and 7 inches in U-FLI that is a significant disparity. It seems to me that the value of what we have come to consider a height dog in NAFA will be lost. Flyball will be only for Border Collies or Border Collie mixes, no others need apply.
There are really two problems created by measuring. The consistency of the measurement and the time required to perform the measuring. A judge that consistently measures a ¼ inch below the actual dogs height does not make an un-level playing field as long as every dog competing was measured by that judge. But if every height dog is required to be measured in large tournament most of the day will be spent measuring dogs instead of racing dogs. Or our height dogs and judges will have to show up at 3:00am for measurement. I suggest that we take a look at NASCAR, the winner of the race is required to go through post race inspection. If the car does not pass the inspection the win is taken away. In NAFA a dog that has gone through pre-tournament inspection would not be required to go through post tournament inspection. However, if you chose not to measure during pre-tournament and won the tournament, you must pass through post tournament inspection. Even if you have a height card, if you are sure in the accuracy of your height card there should be no problem having it verified. The argument, by some, that my dog has a height card so no one can measure the dog again tells me one thing. You have a very favorable height card and it should be, and needs to be verified. If you disagree prove me wrong, get you dog measured by an independent third party.
Mike brought up a VERY important point – teams ‘have the right’ to challenge the jump height of another team they are racing against… but how many actually have ever done this? There are some serious conequences should you challenge another teams height. Specifically, if you challenge them and you are in fact wrong and their height dog really does measure what it’s listed at… then you and your team are branded poor sports! If you challenge and in fact win the challenge… then you risk losing friends and get branded as the ‘flyball police.’ So is it worth all the aggravation to challenge when the consequences could ultimately alienate you and your team?
I have witnessed Division 1 teams racing and jumping 11″ and then looked down the lane and asked myself and my team mates “Exactly which one of those 4 BC’s is measuring 15″ at the shoulder???” And these are Division 1 teams!! You can’t tell me they don’t know better… they are just banking on their ‘power’ as a D1 team and assuming no one has the balls the challenge them! We don’t run D1 so we can’t challenge… nor can I say we’d have the gumption to challenge even if we were a D1 team. It just isn’t worth the trouble to challenge.
I don’t like the idea of everyone jumping 8″ – I think the jump height dynamic makes the sport more interesting and I’m sure the original intention of varied jump heights was to encourage breeds big and small to play.
I will say that I think the worst part about the current measuring system is that you are NOT REQUIRED to measure at all!! I think every height dog on every team should have to be measured at every tournament! I know people who have NEVER had their height dog measured… EVER! Is that really fair? Another flaw in the system if you ask me…
I just have to point something out…regarding the U-FLI all BC teams…I currently am playing more U-FLI than NAFA – for one, I am so frustrated by the NAFA bod – I am CHOOSING not to spend my money there. However, if a team that I like hosts a NAFA tourney, I will support that team (if it is not a huge driving distance for us).
In any event, I have played U-FLI in CA, AZ, NV, TN, TX, AL, GA, MI, MO, IL and IA and have only seen a HANDLFUL of all BC or big dog teams. In fact, I only recall two teams at the U-FLI Championships that played with all BC’s – one consistantly, the other switched their lower jumping height dog in and out.
The height dog is not being “done away with.” In fact, I see more height dogs playing, and usually multiple height dogs on the same team. When you are jumping 7 or 8 inches, and move up to 10 or 11 – it seems HUGE. The lower height does not make the bigger dogs go faster – maybe the height dogs. What is does give you is a dog that has a longer day. They are not cracking with exhaustion by the end of Sunday.
Now, I don’t want NAFA to change the heights any more than they have…I think we need the differences the two orgs offer; I do however think NAFA needs to address the measuring issues that are so widespread. So there is no need to Challenge your competitor friend, or get frustrated that someone is jumping a height you don’t think they should. And no need to “disipline” our volunteer judges – who go out of their way to provide us with their services.
I lived thru obnoxious video taping in Reg 16/6 – it took down 3 beloved judges, and caused a whole lot of ill will towards teams. I do not want any other regions to have to go thru that kind of nastiness.
I am concerned that when we look at U-FLI and say “see no or very few are running all BCs”. The U-FLI rules have been around, what 2 or 3 years? The challenge is trying to see into the future and determine what the likely outcomes will be. Ten years ago I never dreamed that we would see Border-Jacks, Border-Staffs, Border-Stacks. I thought the reason mix breeds were allowed was to open the sport up to everyone, not to promote creating a better flyball breed. But now, in my region, you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting some mix that is suppose to be the next great flyball dog. To anyone that runs these dogs, it’s between you and your dog, I don’t mind as long as these dogs are not flooding the local ponds or rescues.
My point is that the full consequences of our decisions are not always immediately apparent. Sometimes it can take years for the true result to be seen. It is up to us to protect the future of the sport, as well as correct what is happening today.
I understand your point, but, in the beginning, most NAFA teams played with all BC’s or all big dogs. As the sport grew, and the realization that your big dogs would go faster with smaller height dogs – the demand or need for height dogs grew. I know a team in CA – that is now disbanded – that ONLY ran 4 BC’s over 15 inches. No one on the team wanted to “deal” with height dogs. And, I know that there are alot of NAFA teams in NorthAmerica that jump 14 (used to be 15/16) for the same reason, or, not being able to find a height dog person. So the argument that lower jump heights will do away with height dogs is not really valid. Persons that are more inclined to get small dogs will still get small dogs. Teams that want to maintain a lower height – in both Orgs. will continue to do so. New teams that have big dogs ready to race, that don’t want to jump 14 NAFA, can jump 12 in U-FLI – until they get a NAFA or U-FLI height dog trained. I have been around this sport since 1991 – my first tournment in Santa Barbara there was only 2 teams with height dogs – everyone else was jumping 16 inches – and it took a toll, believe me! My club had one team that ran a Lab, 2 BC’s and a Dobie over 16 and ran in the high 19′s!
My club, we have more height dogs than we know what to do with! 7 that run 7 in UFLI and 9/10 in NAFA – a few that jump 8 in UFLI and 12 in NAFA. We never jump over 8 in UFLI and 10 in NAFA.
Your post brings me back to my original question, WHY? Why is the rule being change being proposed? If there is a problem, what is it, and is this the most efficient means of correcting the problem? We are to discus the vote on a change that may or may not fix a problem that may or may not exist. It seems backwards to me. I was informed that the reason for the proposal was because the BoD received “several” request for the change. How many is “several”? I was also told that the BoD does not know why the change was proposed. I believe these are important questions that should be considered. But once again these are the thoughts of an “anal retentive perfectionist”.
That is a very good question…would it allow the boarderline dogs the lower measurement? Thus, the dogs with questionable height cards would be able to jump their height card heights without challanges. So a 16 inch dog that haas a questionable HC at 11 – still gets it’s height of 16 less 5 is 11(and two BoD members come to mind that might have dogs that fall into this category – and I stress might since I have seen the dogs measure, but someone I know has).
The rule just changes the 4″ subtraction to a 5″ subtraction. So yep, if you are currently running 11″ by your height card you will be able to run 10″. Nothing else changes.
My point being, if a HC has your dog measuring 15 -(11) and it gets challanged, and your dog measures 16 – you still have an 11.
That is not the way it will happen. A dog that measures 15 will subtract 5″ to jump 10″. If they have a HC you either accept it or pay $100.00 to challenge it. Someone with a guilty concence may say “now my dog is legal”. But more than likely they will realize that they can now jump 10″. I don’t see this as a solution to keep people from pushing the limits.
I agree, I don’t think it is a solution, but, would it not keep the HC legal – after going thru the challange process, and the appointed Measuring Judge gets a 16 instead of the previously recorded 15 – you would still get 11 HC? But you are right, they will get to jump another 1 inch lower…so that would be my question – if it goes to a 5 inch deduction, you challange a HC – and the above scenario happens, would the HC be illegal, especially if it was obtained pre 5 inch deduction? A 15 inch record for a dog, gets measured under the challang and the challange measurment gets a 16 – but, would still jump the same 11 inches (assuming the 5 inch rule goes into effect). Does that make any sense?! (it makes sense to me, but I have been known to march to my own drummer
)
You are assuming that by implementation of this rule all existing height cards would be obsolete. Therefore, every dog would have to go through the height card process again. Call me cynical but FAT CHANCE! The proposed rule doesn’t indicate this. I suspect that people with existing height cards would receive a new height card that is compliant with the new rule. If you had an 11” card you would find a shiny new card in the mail indicating 10”.
Honestly, I have never seen a height card. I’m assuming the card indicates the jump height and not the dogs height.
HC’s have the measurements and signatures of the judges – along with tourney location/date. So, there is a record of what the measurement actually was.
If the rule changed from a 4″ deduction to a 5″ deduction you wouldn’t need to get another height card you would simply jump an inch lower than you were jumping previously. So the challenge rules would not change – if someone wanted to initiate a challenge they certainly could do so and the process would be the same as it always was for a HC challenge. If the dog failed the challenge – they would lose their HC and there would be “no other penalities” (taken from the NAFA Bylaws) to the dog.
I’m going to throw this out there and probably get crucified for it… but here goes. Does anyone else feel as though the BOD may be jumping at the chance to lower the measuring system to satisfy their own guilty consciences? I have seen many of the BOD members in action and they are some of the worst offenders when it comes to questionable jump heights. Just an observation….
That is exactly what I was implying…
We haven’t had a U-FLI tournament in my area yet. As of now NAFA is the only game in town. Also, we do not have a NAFA BoD in our region so I haven’t seen most of the BoD’s dogs. So I can honestly say that I have no information regarding the comments above. I like playing NAFA flyball!!! And my name isn’t Mike.
Not Mike, I like playing flyball. To me, this is not about NAFA vs. U-FLI – just my un-happiness with the NAFA bod – not the program the Org offers.
Should we now refer to you as NM
I love playing NAFA flyball too… I just wish there weren’t so many areas of gray. But that’s a part of ANY sport you play I guess. For me personally, I just can’t knowingly list my dog at a jump height that is lower than I know my dog measures at but I see it done all the time by other teams and it angers me.
*I have yet to play in a U-Fli event and don’t want to have what I say misconstrued as ‘comparing’ the 2 organizations because I’m not.
Honestly, I think they are doing this in an effort to become more responsive to their customers. I suspect that this is an issue that was on the top of the most requested list, so they are putting it up for a vote. My suggestion to the Board would be instead of reacting to the unsolicited request they do some market research to see what the customers are thinking. Reacting to unsolicited request causes two outcomes. They are going to receive a lot more unsolicited request. Two, people are going to believe that the baby that cries the loudest gets the bottle. If you really want something from the board become a constant nagging pain. They will always be reacting instead of acting. Reacting in this manner has cause several businesses to make numerous questionable decisions, resulting in their ultimate demise.
Sincerely,
Not Mike
I personally am for subtracting 5 instead of 4. Yes it is a band-aid fix but it will enable height dogs to run a little lower of a jump height. My borderjack has been measured at home at 14 3/4 but at a tourney measures 15 1/2. I jump him at 11″. I don’t think anyone would question us since we are not in Div 1 racing if I jumped him at 10″ but I can’t bring myself to jump him at 10″ when I am not sure if would measure for that in a tourney environment. He has some issues with people so stands extremely tall if a judge measures him. I have tried having many people work this with him but he still freaks some. He is a VERY flat jumper over 11″. He will hit almost every jump with his paws up and back and has also been known to face plant because of hitting jumps. He runs around 4.4 over 11″ and will run 4.1-4.2 over 9″. He can run a 4.0 over 7″. In U-Fli he measures for 7″ and I think that is way too low of a measurement.
I guess my ramblings are basically there are issues with both organizations. I think the wicket sucks and gives some dogs too high of a measurement. I think in U-Fli the tool is a great device BUT I think it allows dogs to jump too low. I would be much happier jumping my borderjack over 10″ than 11″ even though NAFA is not actually fixing the measuring system.
Yes I have run in both organizations but I do prefer NAFA over U-Fli. I run on 2 different clubs depending on the organization and we are hosting our first U-Fli tourney in Feb so I do understand both orgs and measuring.
Both orgs need to work on their measuring I think.
When I was running Trump, my Great Dane, I could say that flyball wasn’t fair because the jumps weren’t high enough. If the jumps were all set to 22” Trump would still run in about 5 seconds. However, the BCs would be slowed making Trump a much more competitive dog. I say lets raise the jump heights, every dog must jump 22”. This is the same argument just going in a different direction.
Well Mike, not only would the jump heights not be fair, but the distance between the jumps. Your Dane would have needed a greater width to be able to really streatch out. My first Adult dog – Fraizer – was a Lab/Wolf cross (from Frazier Park, CA), running between the jumps was like bunny hopping! This was a dog that could clear 11 feet without touching the top – to say he was hard to keep in a yard was an understatement.
For some reason, my big Mals don’t have an issue with the width, but, you would see more Greyhounds in the sport I am sure.
You are absolutely correct. All Jumps heights will be set at 22″ at 13 feet apart. Lets hear from all those big dog people.
My question still stands, WHY??
My question would be why not? (hum Not Mike with a Dane named Trump…..or do we have 2 Mikes in this conversation?)
Lets move ahead to new and look outside the box.
Hey Judy, long time no hear, well actually read. BTW this is Not Mike, never mind.
First, the subtract 4” rule is the rule we have been playing under for years and seems to have worked. I mean we are all still playing flyball, I hope. Anyone reading my ramblings that doesn’t play flyball needs a life even more than I. Anyone that reads my post and plays flyball may want to re-evaluate their life as well. But that is a discussion for another day. There are only two reasons to change when looking at any issue. What is currently being done doesn’t work, meet the objective. Or there is a better way than the current method for meeting the objective. The current method has been used for as long as I’ve been around, I suspect that it has been working as long as you’ve been around. No one wants to know how long that’s been. You first played with Noah on the Ark, right?? But you only had the two dogs. I kid because I care.
So the next reason for change is that there is a superior method. One aspect and the most important would be that it is safer for our dogs. As I have said in previous posts if this is the case I’ll not only vote for it, I’ll campaign for the change. However, I’m an engineer I need more than just your word on it, some supporting data would be nice. Otherwise it’s just supposition. The other reason would be to make teams go faster. Subtracting 5” instead of 4” would make teams go faster. But wait think about how much faster they would go if 6” was subtracted or 7”. If the reasons for changing are, because we can, and two, because we will go faster, then lets remove the jumps all together. The dogs will really be flying then, except there’ll be no reason to jump. I think we can agree that jumps are kind of required. So the question becomes what height should the jumps be, well back in the good’ol days we use to set the heights 4” below the withers of the smallest dog running. I agree 4 is an arbitrary number, but so is 5. As long as we all play by the same rules it is fair. I suspect some believe that they will go faster subtracting 5” but fail to realize that their competition will likely go faster as well. The top performers will still be the top performers when it is all said and done. So the only reason the rule got changed was because it could. That isn’t a very good reason.
Look only two paragraphs that’s pretty good for me.
Not Mike….why do you think if you jump one inch less everyone will go faster? This is really not the case, or else all the U-FLI teams would be breaking land speed records. Honestly, the only dog the lower jump impacts is the height dog – they go a few tenths faster. Case in point. My teams fastest time over their NAFA height of 9 is 16.4 – our fastest U-FLI time over 7 is 16.1. Now, this difference is just a matter of passing, and the dogs running their times at the same time. Our height dog runs 4.2/4.3 over 9 and 4.0/4.1 over 7 – she is a short legged staffy mix. All our other dogs seem to run the same time over 9 as they do 7.
Now, if the objective is that there are a whole lot of teams out there that have dogs teetering on 15/16 – 5 subtraction would give them an 11 inch jump height – much more user friendly than 12! (it is amazing what an inch can do…;) )
First I am not trying to change anything. I am curious and do not have the benefit of having been around the sport for a few decades.
Jackie, Mike, and Not Mike finally got around to the point I was trying to make.
Under the current system, dogs between 11″ and 17″ have the hurdles lowered 4″. Shorter dogs and taller dogs just need to suck it up.
The hurdles are placed 10′ apart, if your dogs sprinting stride is not naturally 10′, oh well.
Teams are placed in tournament brackets based on speed. Then they race against teams jumping different heights.
At the end of the day, the fastest team running the most clean heats, wins. (Wanna bet this is the team jumping 14″?) Many times, I have seen comments on how much more fatiguing it is for the dog to run 14″.
Just out of curiousity, how many times has the division winner/runner-up been one of the following: a team running 14″, a team running 7″?
The whole setup is a compromise…
a pappy runs the same distance as a greyhound
hurdles are 10′ apart, few dogs above and below 13″-15″ have a 10′ stride at full speed
hurdle height – that’s been discussed ad nauseum…
How did NAFA arrive at 4″ lower than dogs standing between 11″ and 18″ at the withers?
My team has a 16″ Border Staffy that runs 4.1 to 4.2. But we, as a club, have decided that we don’t like the way the dogs look when they jump at 12”. So only on very rare occasions do we use it as a height dog. Instead we run a 14” Staff that runs at 5 seconds. Change the rule to subtract 5″ and we are much more likely to use the Boarder Staffy as a height dog, instead of the Staffy. So this rule will make our team go almost a second faster. Wait why am I writing this?
Maybe I can sympathize with the shorter dogs since I am short myself. I have had to suck up a lot things being only 5′ tall. Growing up I was quite athletic but I still had issues doing many things the way the taller kids did them.
It gets a little annoying when people say the small dogs should suck it up. The problem is they do suck it up all the time. Why should they not be given a break like the bigger dogs get when they have a height dog. Giving the height dogs one less inch still does not give them the break the bigger dogs get who are jumping many, many inches less than their height at the withers.
Here is a thought on the change in the middle. When the last jump height change was made it changed for dogs under 12 inches and above18 inches. For height dogs 12 inches to 18 inches there was no change. This will make an adjustment for the middle guys. I wonder how many dogs measure to jump 7 as it is measured now. The change may effect more height dogs than the last one. I would think most height dogs fall in the midrange than at the ends. Gyp is 22 inches and runs with heights of 7, 9 and 10 depending on who he is running with. His speed doesn’t seem to change in that range.
So I was think of the solution to measuring, and someone said something about a device used for Whippet racing I think? Pre set dohickys that you place over the dogs withers…one each for 13 on down to 7. The competitor walks up with their dog, can’t touch it, the judge places it over it’s back, if it does not touch the ground – next one up, or if their is alot of room, next one down. No moving wicket, no moving the feet, just walk the dog up…
Judy, being a judge for as long as you have been, what do you think? You have seen it all, I am sure?
For those of you who keep insisting that 1 inch doesn’t make a difference in the overall times of a team – I have to disagree. There is a significant time difference when you are jumping tall to begin with (say 12″) and your height dog (for whatever reason) suddenly measures an inch taller at an event and your dogs are now jumping 13″ instead of their usual 12″ (yes, it’s happened to us!). The overall times of the team when down significantly! And the fatigue level of the dogs was definitely noticable. By Sunday one dog just quit playing for the weekend. He decided he didn’t like jumping a mountain anymore and simply refused to run anymore that day… and he’s a BC!
So when you are talking about the speed of your BC’s and bigger dogs jumping 8″ instead of 7″ maybe the overall team times arent’ affected – but when you are already jumping a mountain and have to another inch taller… it DOES show in the team times in the range of a half second or more.
Am I for changing the rule to 5″? Not really sure yet, though coming from a team with no true height dogs (our smallest comes in at 10″ if we’re lucky) it would certainly help us out a ton at tournaments. Either way we will continue to play and have fun – but if they do change the rule to 5″ we’ll just be playing… faster!
I agree with you, that when you are jumping anything above 12, anything under 12 will increase your overall time. And, you will have more race/run from your dogs over the lower height.
At the last region 14 tournament we had 26 teams.
The height dog range was 7″ – 5, 8″ – 2, 9″ – 6, 10″ – 10, 11″ – 6, and 12″ -1. All the teams had a height dog listed. So if it changed 5 dogs would stay the same and 25 height dogs would jump 1″ less. Statistically the change from 4 to 5 inches will be greater than the change to the top and bottom jump height in the number of dogs effected. Will there be a corresponding statistical change in speed? The only place you could tell for sure would be with well established teams that have a very consistant time over multiple tournaments. Otherwise it could all come back to the human part of the equation and passing. The exception would be in the upper heights above 11″.
Will this be better for the short guys as far as endurance and longevity is the main question. the secondary question is Will it be better for all the dogs as far as endurance and longevity are concerned?
Also for consideration would be it’s effect on the game itself.
I believe that teams can jump any height above the minimum for their height dog except in veterans.
Which measuring method is more accurate, less stressfull, less cheatable etc. is interesting but is not the question up for voting and will not be effected by the vote. My opinion is the rules comitee needs to do some serious thinking and some form of open discussion with all the teams to resolve the conflicts there. then come up with something to vote on about the actual measuring.
The problem our team has is not with the jump heights themselves, it is with the cheating that goes on at EVERY tournament. Ninety plus percent of height dogs do not get measured in our region. The few handlers that DO measure do so because they are afraid of being challenged by another team that has a beef with them. Otherwise they wouldn’t do it either. Being one of those handlers, it is the most frustrating thing to look over in the next lane and see a dog that is obviously taller than mine, jumping lower! So you would say, why don’t you challenge them? Because our team dies not wanted to be branded as the bad sports. NAFA doesn’t need to adjust the jump heights, they need to MANDATE measuring and come up with a more accurate way to do it. Period. This and only this will level the playing field.
Leave a Comment