You Make the Call
Click on photo for larger view.
Someone sent me this photo of a flyball box that is used during flyball tournaments. They did not specify in which organization this box is used, NAFA or U-FLI, but I have to assume it is NAFA, because in my view of the rules this would not fly (pardon the pun) in U-FLI. I guess it is technically legal based on the current NAFA rules but might be on the verge of stretching them a bit.
This is what the NAFA rulebook says about the flyball box in Chapter 1, Section 1.1 (e):
(e) Boxes:
(i) Shall not exceed 24 inches in width, nor 18 inches in height from the bottom surface of the box excluding mat grabbing devices/materials and outdoor staking devices;
(ii) The body of the box shall not exceed 30 inches in depth;
(iii) The base of the box upon which the boxloader stands may exceed 30 inches in depth;
(iv) Mat grabbing devices/materials shall not raise the box by more than one half inch;
(v) The box shall not exceed these dimensions at any time during racing (including any permanent attachments to the box, i.e. carrying handles, cocking devices).
I think the subparagraph that makes this technically legal is (iii) because the part where the boxloader stands can exceed the 30 inch depth of the overall box. Nothing in the rulebook says where the 30 inch depth begins or ends.
The U-FLI rulebook would not allow this box because the overall depth of the box cannot exceed 30 inches and the 30 inch depth includes the part where the boxloader stands.
Clarification on the Poll question and answers:
Should NAFA change the rules on flyball boxes?
- Yes
- No
- Based on the current rules the box is illegal
- Not Sure
You make the call – Should NAFA change the rules on flyball boxes?
- 1. Yes – This box should not be legal (20%, 34 Votes)
- 2. No – Changes are not needed to the rules (31%, 53 Votes)
- 3. In my view this is illegal and it’s like training in the ring (46%, 78 Votes)
- 4. Not sure (3%, 5 Votes)
Total Voters: 170
Loading …You Make the Call - Would you like to have your questions or problems answered in the poll? Just send me the all the details using the contact form and I will do the rest.
Larry
Related Post:
54 comments ↓
That’s a Jim Sova box. I’ve seen that box before (without the jump board) when an out of Region team from the midwest visits my region. Without the jump board in front, it’s pretty thin. I’d say it’s entirely “possible” this configuration is under the 30″ overall depth limit. It’s impossible to tell one way or the other without a yardstick indicating its dimensions.
But it is not a Hawkeye Hustlers box. This was added after the fact, just in the last few months. This is the box currently being used by Bordering on Insanity. And has been used in two NAFA tounaments - Madison, WI and Jefferson, WI.
Very creative. I’ve tried something similar although
not as extreme. I wanted to fix a jump board to the
front of the box. I discussed it with the powers that
be (NAFA judges). They indicated that it should not
be allowed (training aid). I pointed out that another
team in the region was using removable side blinders
that were attached to the side of the box to help prevent
the dogs from doing a wide turn. What’s the difference
between attaching an aid to the front vs the side?
They agreed and I was granted permission to use
my box, with the caveat that if the judge deemed
it dangerous, I could not use it.
It was a moot point, since I never actually used the
box in a tournament, but it was an interesting
exercise. Personally, as long as the box fits within
the boundaries specified by the rules, it should be legal.
Remember the original sling shot Flyball boxes?
Without room to innovate, we’d all still be using those.
“…it’s entirely “possible” this configuration is under the 30 inch overall depth limit.”
I think it probably is within the 30 inch overall depth limit if the boxloader standing area is not part of the measurement. However, I feel like it is more of a training aid.
So, how do we fix this so it is NOT legal? Do we start sending every new box design to the Board for approval?
……or, do we add language to our rules defining what a training aid is and requiring such training aids (side blinders, jump boards) be removeable and removed from the ring prior to the start of racing?
NAFA’s Rules are silent when you look for “training aids”. There is no mention of jump boards. What you may call “side blinders” I may refer to as “wings”. I think they should be defined and required to be removeable and removed. …..and, it takes time to develop language that is clear and enforceable.
Chapter 7 Warm-ups:
(b) There shall be no practice or training in the ring for the duration of the tournament, except for the warm-up as permitted prior to each race. Training in the ring during the competition will mean a forfeit of the heat.
This is taken from the NAFA Glossary:
Training in the ring - where, once racing has started, the handler uses techniques and/or devices that would be used to train. See Chapter 7 warm-ups, Chapter 8, Section 8.3 - The Run.
This thing attached to the front of the box looks like a training device to me.
Something my teammates witnessed first had with this box as well, is that it aided in bobbles, the ball would get stuck in between the peddle and the prop.
Technically, legal, but NOT what should be accepted. It is a training aid, as is wings. Train a better turn…don’t streach the rules.
If this is legal, let’s just leave the jump board in place. I agree with Chris, new language will have to be written, to be very specific.
“Training in the ring - where, once racing has started, the handler uses techniques and/or devices that would be used to train. See Chapter 7 warm-ups, Chapter 8, Section 8.3 - The Run.”
OK, so obviously, this includes the use of tugs, toys or
food treats. After all, when you have “Trained” your dog,
you should no longer need to use these training aids.
In agility, you are not allowed to bring treats or toys
in the ring, right? Yeh, and you shouldn’t be able to
whistle or call your dog. Don’t say “READY!!!” or
anything that would rev up your dog. Don’t run with your
do, that would be a training technique. All this certainly
falls under the definition of “Training in the Ring”
as stated above in the NAFA rulebook.
No, seriously, the box rules are fine. The box
must fit completely behind the line, fit within defined
constraints, and must fire the ball a minimum distance.
If you want to fix a broken rule, then let’s get rid of the
stupid “Training in the Ring” rule.
Everyone, if you are halfway decent at the sport,
trains in the ring every time you run. You are constantly
training your dog to get more from them. This is
something that should not be considered illegal.
I tend to agree with you about the “Training in the Ring” rule because it is a very subjective call. However, the device attached to this box is more like a prop used for box training.
I see tugs, toys, etc as a reward for job well done. My dog should have been trained before going into the ring, to come back to the reward. We use a prop in warm up to reinforce the training that we have done prior to the tournament. I am not training my dog to come back to a tug, that has already been trained. Just like in agilty, we have our tugs or toys right outside of the ring. The dog completed the course and gets it’s reward. Just like in flyball, the dog completes the course and gets is reward - although in the ring.
Technically, it fits within the rules. As far as if it gives an advantage? maybe. Certainly with loose balls. But with the overall speed of the dog? maybe not. The hole is, afterall, probably an extra 8-10 inches behind the line.
As far as a training device, I can see why people would argue that it is. But is there any difference with that and with the tape that the majority of the teams use on their boxes? Or a flap on the top of the box to keep the dogs’ heads low?
jmo
robin
Region 3
White tape is not a physical barrier, most dogs do or can ignore it. They can put their feet on it, touch it, and have no reprocusssion. This thing is a physical barrier, the dog have to jump over it, or knock it.
Jackie, you took the words right out of my keyboard!
Hello
To clarify things;
This is, a “2004 modified SpringBack”. It is the old style, and not in production anymore. The Newer style is Called the “SpringBack Hybred”.
The diminsions of this older style box are within specs complete, or apart!. The 30″ rule pertains to the box, which technicly ends by the MainSpring area. This box portion, can be completely removed from the base, and will function without it. Hence the base is technicly considered the platform. I tried back when to get the Nafa board to make it include the platform in the 30 inch diminsion. As usual they didn’t listen to me. Its a wonder someone hasn’t thought of this before.
If Nafa wants to keep the platform rule, then make an addtion to the box rule by allowing matting to extend in front of the front portion af a box by only 2 inches (a platform can extend behind 30″, why noit something in front), with jumboard . side boards ect.. extend up from the matting by 1 inch. Seems reasonable to me and a simple fix.
Jim Sova
Is not the ledge where you can place/rest balls in front of a ball hole not a physical barrier?
Jim Sova
ps. let me say I am not in favor of this jump board developement. But you have to look at all arguments.
item (iii) of the rules covers the platform that was folded out for boxloader footing. The basic box w/o platform is 30 inches.
If a boxmaker had this setup with a jumpboard and could keep the depth @ 30 inches, IMO it would fit the rules, as there is no provision for jump boards in front or the box as a perminate fixture of said box.
I do not make such a box, nor do I plan to! A setup like this should be for training only.
Keith Yockey
www.xcergy.com
The rules require that the ball when released, have an unobstructed flight of 24 inches. That thing looks like it would obstruct the flight. The picture does raise an interesting point and the rules probably should be clarified, but if this entire apparatus, not counting where the loader stands is under 30 inches deep, it’s legal. We’ve considered adding an apparatus on the front of our box, but it wouldn’t have pushed the envelope anywhere near as much as that.
The rules require that the ball when released, have an unobstructed flight of 24 inches.
Good point. My boxes shoot 30″ but I doubt if the ball flight would clear this pictured ‘jump’.
Keith
www.xcergy.com
www.thedumbdog.com
Pete
Is is legal, I have shown without the platform in place/attached and a dog tripping the box and getting the ball. Of course its much more stable with the platform you stand on.
These “SpringBack” boxes can come off the base, (evan the New “SpringBack Hybred” models). They have two “D” hinge pins or axles that come out after undoing the clip, and removal of the “stripper bolt(2)” on the main spring block.
Jim
I’m not sure I’m understanding how this could fit within the rules. Surely, ya’ll are kidding us? Common sense and reason tells us that this is obviously a “training aid” (yes, I know the term is subjective, but let’s get real). It’s not a part of the “body” of the box, at least in my understanding. This looks no different than if I decided to go tape a piece of matting with a cone or jump board attached to it to our box and try to get away with it. I can’t believe this was actually used as pictured in tournaments. Maybe the wording in the rules should say that there will be no obstructions (I guess that’s subjective too) directly in front of or attached to the front (or sides) of a box.
Beth
Jackie, you’re right - white tape is not a physical barrier, but the reason people put it there is to “act” like a physical barrier. It’s still a training “prop” that is legal. No different than this prop.
The “blinders’ were discussed at a Nafa meeting and deemed legal - as long as if they remained in place during the race. They could not be removed by the box loader after a particular dog ran - they had to stay in place for all dogs (unless a dog knocked them off).
For what it’s worth, I don’t see too much of an advantage - especially, since the hole is further back.
robin
I’m sorry, Robin, but in my view, tape can be considered “decoration” and not a prop. Some Teams tape the sides of the pedal as well as across the lower front. A dog can make contact with the tape or not. This design is intended to guide the dog’s path to the box and alter that path so that the dog must place all four feet on the box in order to negotiate the box turn during a race. TAPE is just a mental reminder to the dog where his feet should go. The dog can ignore tape.
Jim, I’m glad you are part of the discussion. Can you clarify this for me? We know this design and this “modification” of your design fits within the box dimensions for NAFA. Does this modified box also fit within U-FLI specs? You are the builder and you know what a competitor can do with your box so I’m just curious if this design did show up at a U-FLI event, what would be their ruling based on the 30″ limit?
Chris, this box has not shown up to a U-FLI event, but, I know it is not within their guidelines.
This picture really surprised me. I’ve never seen anything like this in my region. Innitially, I looked at it and only noticed the obvious extra “item ” in front of the box you are all disscussing. After reading all the comments, and different perspectives I’m trying to look at this from all points of view before I really decide where I stand on this.
The obovious”item” in front of the box
I noticed immediately, but there’s also a white buffer thing on top of the box that I didn’t see at first. What is that about? Can someone enlighten me on that?
It’s funny, someone mentioned old boxes-
I happen to own an old launcher style flyball box that was given to me at one time.(I keep it becuase it’s part of the history of the game) We don’t use it, but there was a very valid point made for the advancement of boxes. I think this sport is evolving (very quickly) and from the perspective of making it safer for my dogs I’m all for it.
Just keep in mind, every sport has contraversies about this sort of thing. If you look at baseball for example; the records broken and made with and without steriods, seem to hold a different “honor” in the minds of the public. A Hank Aaron record still stands in the minds of the baseball faithful in higher regard than the recordsof recent baseball heros- because of the steriod thing. Yet in other areas,(balls, gloves, bats,etc.) advancement of equipment is just that. I suppose this could easily happen with our sport too. Records held before this or that advancment or rule change will be veiwed differently.
I find interesting that this box hasn’t been used in U-fli.
NAFA should look at this, representation should be given to each region and input should be given. This blog has opened my eyes to many things that may not be part of my region but I’m glad to become more informed about. Information makes for better training of my dogs and helps me enormously. I appreciate all different points of veiw and will continue reading to form my own opinion on this issue.
thank you to all who have posted, this conversation is good and should be shared.
It has not been used in U-FLI as the team using it has not been to a U-FLI tourney in our area. They are entered in Henry, IL this month, so we will see.
As for the white thing at the top, that is the gutter the team uses to try to keep their dogs from under-rotating off the box. I don’t believe that is stays up there.
Chris, if I’m not mistaken, you are saying that the tape is there as a mental reminder but can be viewed as decorative. I view it as it’s there for a reason and not a decorative reason. They don’t tape the entire box, nor do they do fancy designs with tape or paint. They generally tape the lower part and sometimes a thin tape up the sides to help guide the dogs. I interpret that as a training device that is legal, since it fits within the rules of NAFA.
Not much difference with this box. It fits within the rules of NAFA. Do I like the look - No. Do I think it looks weird - Yes. But, until Nafa clarifies this, it meets the standards and is legal.
Unfortunately, Nafa spends a lot of time clarifying rules because some peoples’ “innovations”. And because of it, the rule book gets bigger and bigger
It may not be illegal, but it sure pushes the bounderies of good flyball etiquette. Flyball is a GAME to be enjoyed with a pet that you love. You play for 39cent toys and points, what is to be gained by not playing fair?
I don’t see that is box has broken any rules. I had thought about this awhile back but with the holes being pushed back you end up giving up about 6 to 7 feet per race. You will not seem a world record with a box like that. You are better off to train a better turn on the dogs. If you look back at the rules they basically give you a cube in which to provide a pedal for the dog to push and a ball to fly out at least 2′ towards the start line.
“…. you are saying that the tape is there as a mental reminder but can be viewed as decorative. I view it as it’s there for a reason and not a decorative reason. They don’t tape the entire box, nor do they do fancy designs with tape or paint. ”
Robin, with all due respect, just because it’s there to remind the dogs (remind, not FORCE) where to put their feet, it doesn’t mean it can’t be decorative, too.
My team tapes our box, too. Everybody uses white tape for this purpose. My team colors are “Maize and Blue” after the University of Michigan school colors which inspired our name, the Wooferines. “White” didn’t look good on our box so, we used yellow tape instead, purely for looks. It could mess up the Agility dogs on our team since Agility uses yellow to indicate contact points for the dogs to touch. Nevertheless, we didn’t just want a functional box…..we want it to look good, too.
So, the tape on the Wooferines box is both decorative and a reminder to the dogs.
Ok Chris, I’ll concede that it CAN be decorative too
But like you say it is also there to remind dogs - and some COULD interpret that as training. Some MIGHT argue that the barrier is also a “reminder” to lift the feet… Although my dog would probably just crash it 
Some may argue that rerunning a dog that dropped a ball as training (assuming that the other side is finished). Some may argue that it’s a “reminder” for the dog to return the ball…
Regardless, the original question was if the box was legal technically. Technically it is, as it conforms to the standards set forth in the rules and until the board changes the wording to stop this practice, then it is legal. Do I think that it goes against the intent of the rule/game - YES! But it still conforms.
Anyway like Glenn stated, the hole is pushed back, so I see no big advantage. The turn may be pretty, but who is to say that it wasn’t a pretty turn to begin with. Now the hole is just set that much further back…
I think that it may not be “technically legal” unless you think the Glossary in the NAFA rulebook is not part of the rulebook.
Training in the ring - where, once racing has started, the handler uses techniques and/or device that would be used to train.
I think the word, devices used here is the operative word. Is this a device or not? It looks like a device to me. It’s actually a 5th jump.
That got everybody to sit up and take notice!
Some rather curious angles on this.
Any old rule book can be pushed until it breaks.
Judging from what I have seen and read, Flyball is about to take off in two different directions.
“X-treme sports”, “it aint flyball until there’s blood”, shaving thousands of a second, “wings”, “blinders”, “hoods”, “practicing” during warmup…and don’t forget the use of the tug.
I hope to be able to hang with a crowd that gets together at a tournament to see what their dogs can do on their own, with no dreams of making it to Saturday Nite Live. And practices at the house so that they are prepared for the tournament.
NAFA does not seem to have done anything quickly in the past - is this wise old folk, or a broken communication system?
Larry
What do you call the ledge/wedge on the pedal/lid that balls can rest on? Is that not an added device too? After all, why is it there in the first place? It is an obstacle a dog must overcome to get the ball. Same as tape, same as side lips. Same as top lips. Its an aid. It works on the turn behavior of a dog on the box.
Is this something that is safe for the dogs. I would have to lean on the plus side. On the other hand, I’ve seen some boxes out there that have no matting on the bottom portion of the lid/pedal front inch and a half. (its where the lid is hinged to box, seen on some wooden/plastic type boxes)
NAFA doesn’t seem too concerned to do anything about that. To me, that is a real safety issue as we all have seen dogs slide into boxes at one point or another. MAtting on a box should go all the way down the the race lane!
Jim
I find it hard to believe that this box is used as shown during a tournament. I’ve seen this box used without the long mat/jump attachment in the front–I was never fond of it because it tends to fly up when the dogs hit it, and I was always afraid that a dog would get his foot caught under it.
Jim
Looking at your point of view, I can see why you think it is legal and why the people that approved this think it is legal. If this is legal, we should be able to leave our warm-up props in the ring for the race. What would the rules committee think about that? This device is basically the same thing as the prop I use for training, but it’s just not attach to the box; or we can all start attaching jumps to the front of our boxes. Apparently, it is legal.
I was just reading the board minutes from the Board of Directors meeting in Detroit, MI on August 25th and find that in section 11 of the minutes the box in question was discussed at some length. To see who voted against rule changes that would have corrected this problem, please see the board minutes. I see that two people on the board that voted against rule changes are up for reelection. Please let your votes reflect how you feel about this issue.
And don’t forget Larry, the team captain of the team that is using this box is running for the BoD..Zac Chernik
Wow. I couldn’t believe this box was really used until I saw the NAFA discussion. If it’s legal, it CERTAINLY skirts the bounds of legality, and seems unsporting as well.
I can’t say I find it heartening that so many of the NAFA board are OK with it.
There are two questions wrapped together in the poll we are asked to vote in. The first question is, “Does this box conform to NAFA’s Rules for flyball boxes?”
So far, this discussion has revealed that the Flyball community is “split” on whether or not this box is legal. As of this comment, 47% (almost half) say it is illegal in their opinion.
The NAFA Board almost perfectly reflected this split by a 5-4 vote ruling this box was legal, according to the current wording of NAFA Rules . If you take into account that any poll has a 5% deviancy rate from total accuracy, this fits with popular view.
What of the remaining 53% in the above poll? They actually have a different question to answer. The assumption contained in that question is that the box is legal according to current NAFA Rules. So, the second question becomes, “Should NAFA change it’s rules to make this box “illegal”? Only 77 votes actually answer this question.
Again, the flyball community is split on whether or not NAFA should change this rule: 28 votes YES 36%
44 votes NO 57%
5 votes Undecided 6%
If the flyball community is so “split” on both questions, why are we critical of the NAFA Board for also being “split”?? We are split on this issue, we put them on the NAFA Board and now we are surprised that the Board is split?
For the record, I attended this meeting of the NAFA Board as a guest. Nobody on the Board was “OK” with this issue. But, they have a duty to first consult the NAFA Rules on any issue before they write “new” rules. Since the motion asking for a ruling on this box as illegal failed to pass, it became necessary to draft new wording.
At that point, the minutes become vague. Since I was there, here is the situation as I remember it. It was getting late in the day. The issue that was presented had only been in the Rules Committee hands for 48 hours prior to this meeting. All the members of the Rules committee were from well ouside of Detroit so, most, if not all, had to catch a flight to make this meeting. Not much time to prepare.
When presented to the entire Board, those BoD members had NO time to think or prepare at all. It was dropped on them AT THE MEETING.
Larry presumes that certain Board members voted against fixing the problem. Maybe, what they actually voted against was a BAD fix. How do we know what the reasons were for their vote until we ASK them?
The Rules Committee is still drafting wording. There will be a rule change addressing this issue that takes into account all the arguments that have been expressed so far.
I would ask that anyone contemplating how to cast their vote in this fall’s NAFA election to please, read ALL the Board minutes for all the Board meetings, not just the ones that record Board votes on this issue. The Board members seeking re-election deserve to have their ENTIRE service on the Board reviewed not just one vote on one issue.
I would also urge delegates to attend the NAFA Candidate chats and ask these returning Board members to explain their votes. If you approach this issue with an open mind, you just might learn something. The future of NAFA is too complex and important to be decided on one issue.
Sincerely,
Christine VanWert,
Candidate for the NAFA Board of Directors
Chris, with all due respect, here is my problem with the the perverbial bomb being dropped, and, as a result, the problem with the function of the way the NAFA board operates. The complaint letter, with the pictures of this box was sent the week after the Madison tournament in July. WHY was the issue not presented to the rules committe PRIOR to 48 hours before the meeting? Why did they come in un-prepared - as you wrote?
I think this shows a complete breakdown in running a business. All issues of topic should have been in the hands of all the Board members prior to any meeting, so any board member would be prepared for discussions/voting, etc. I would have thought a flagrant exaggeration of the current rules be dealt with better. Yes, it may be technically within the dimension guidelines, but it is not within the training device guidelines.
I feel this box is illegal in the respect that it is training in the ring. Reading the minutes, I have to say it bothered me too that nothing was done about this. I can respect that they don’t want to rush into a possibly bad fix, but I would expect some action to be taken soon. I agree with Jackie that it shouldn’t have taken so long to be brought to the rules committee and then to the full board. I can buy into the withholding of judgement on board members up for re-election. However, the person behind this box alteration is running for the board and there is no doubt about whether he thinks this is acceptable.
here are pictures of the box being used in Jefferson WI.
http://www.cpollackphoto.com/gallery/3440292#193033298
Look at all the pictures, can you honestly say the White Tape has the same effect? Most of the dogs have their feet all over it or not even trying to get above it.
Thanks for the link to the pics - does this contraption look risky to anyone else? Does it offer any insight as to more specific descriptions as to what a flyball box is?
How about “no edges facing the lane” and “nothing to flip up in the lane under impact”?
THANK YOU Jackie!
Those pictures certainly do offer more insight into the intent of the design and the effect on the dogs.
I only wish those photos had been made available to the NAFA Board prior to the August 25 meeting.
We will never know if that additional information would have influenced the vote outcome on the original motion.
For what it’s worth, I couldn’t help but notice that the BoD members that voted against ruling it as illegal due to “training in the ring” were all Supervising Judges(with one exception). It makes me wonder what they saw that the rest of us missed…
LOL, I think this whole thing is hilarious. Granted we are probably the only team who doesn’t have white tape on our box. Too bad none of our dogs have a good box turn, wait the majority actually do!?! I am sure tape may be some sort of reminder to some dogs, but I’d really like to think that people can train a box turn so that the dogs do it pretty much the same way the vast majority of the time. With or without tape! Guess I’m a bit of a dreamer.
Recently we were cleaning our building and we pulled a 1 hole, curved front box off a dusty shelf. It made me chuckle about boxes, box innovation & design, and how many box styles she has run on. I had my 11 yr old dog play on it to see if she still would. She happily got her ball, then this weekend she went back to our most current mode of box and did her very nice box turn. We are throwing out the old box btw…unless someone wants it, quick garbage pick up is on Tuesday!
When I saw this extra special box I thought, it’s probably legal. I also thought hey, someone figured out how to attach a prop in front of the box. The tournament pictures where interesting as you got to see lot of dogs using the extra special box hitting extra special part & moving it. I would not want my dogs having the opportunity to hit a part of the box that moved in a unpredictable way. Maybe it helps some dogs, but does it effect the confidence of the dogs that hit it? Dunno, but I guess the team using the extra special box feels it helps more than harms good for them. I felt the same way when I saw the side attachment thingie a TX team was/is using. Now it sucks for teams that have to race against them and feel it is giving them an unfair advantage, but since it is legal I guess that really opens up the box modification game. I still say there is some pride in knowing your dogs can do a good box turn without an extra special box though. Now all teams have a certain type of box for a reason, maybe it’s price, maybe it’s style, # of holes, box builder on your team, teammates would scream bloody murder if the box was heavier etc. We also get to choose ball speed, hole placement, box material etc, all seeking some sort of advantage or maybe just a consistent box? The good news is, in a few short years these too will be obsolete!
Yes, I do feel cynical today!
I was at both Madison and Jefferson, and yes at first you would think that the box is illegal
If you watch this for awhile I don’t see how its helping the dogs on this team. It might actually slow them down.
I have not talked to Zac, but I would guess that it is more of a dog safety issue in that if the dog runs straight in to the box with the “jump” in place the dog might be inclined to do a swimmers turn and not smash there face into the box.
The funny thing about this, the BOI team members didn’t know anything about the jump before the tournament.
ps. the same judge was at both tournaments
Wow, I’d be super livid if I came to a tournament and got the surprise that my dogs would be running on an extra special box. Course that’s just me.
“……..here is my problem with the the perverbial bomb being dropped, and, as a result, the problem with the function of the way the NAFA board operates. The complaint letter, with the pictures of this box was sent the week after the Madison tournament in July.”
Jackie and everyone else,
I owe you a huge apology for this one. I was writing from memory and did not check the date stamp on the handout given at the meeting. You are absolutely right. The complaint letter was dated 1 August. It was an internal forward date that was stamped 23 August.
I am sincerely sorry for this mistake. I did not mean to mislead or misrepresent. I only wanted to demonstrate that there is always more information than what we know about an issue.
At least everyone now knows that I am human and perfectly capable of an error.
………Chris
This has been an interesting discussion, and it’s always fun to have a little controversy, but I think many of the posters are missing the point: First, the box is legal. It fits the specifications of the rules and it’s been inspected by two judges and a Regional Director. They all agree the box is legal under the rules. The whole discussion about “training aids” is off track. The raised section at the front of the box is part of the box. It can’t be a training aid because it’s part of the box and it can’t be two things at once. There is no definition of a training aid, but one thing is for sure. The box is not a “training aid.”
Now if you can get past the “legal” non-issue you might want to look at the BOI box for what it is: namely an interesting innovation. I think it’s maybe comparable to when the multiple hole boxes most teams use now began to replace the old wedge shaped boxes with the single hole in the middle. Whether or not the BOI box changes the sport the way the last box innovation did is up to you and the other teams in NAFA. If you think this design innovation helps the dogs go faster then you can certainly copy it. If you think it’s a waste of time, the stick with what you’ve got now. The choice is really yours.
Incidentally, a few people have wondered about the safety of the BOI box. You might be interested to know that the designer of this innovation, Zac Chernick, has done extensive research on this subject and has analyzed hours of video and hundreds of photos. His conclusion is that this innovation enhances safety because it encourages the dogs to make a better, safer turn. Of course, each of us have to make the decision for ourselves about what’s best for our dogs. I wouldn’t presume to make that decision for anyone else, but, personally, I think the BOI box is safer for my dog.
“…The whole discussion about “training aids” is off track. The raised section at the front of the box is part of the box. It can’t be a training aid because it’s part of the box and it can’t be two things at once.”
With all due respect, John, I take issue with your logic. The box certainly can be “two things at once”. Anything can serve multiple purposes. A man can be both a father and a son. He might also be a brother. He probably is someone’s neighbor. Being one thing doesn’t prevent you from also being something else.
By further example….I’ve already pointed out that the tape on a box that serves as a visual aid….similar in purpose as the Bull’s eye on a target…..can also be decorative in nature. Two things…same object.
Now, does an object cease to be what it is just because it is attached to or becomes part of something else? Again, I don’t think so. If I use a nail or a screw to attach a board to another, it doesn’t stop being a nail or a screw. If I place a “jump board” in front of a box to train my dog for a better turn, does it stop being a “jump board” because I use some kind of material to attach it to the box? What was it when it wasn’t attached to the box?
The raised section at the front of the box has nothing to do with the purpose of the box. The box is supposed to deliver a ball to the dog. We describe the allowable dimensions of the box and further the required function of the box. …that the ball must travel at least 24″ from the hole.
The “raised section” does not affect the ball delivery in any way. It does not add or subtract energy from the ball. It does not add framework to the delivery system of the box like the base or the sides or the face or the top of the box serve to house the firing mechanism. The purpose of the raised section is to affect, change, impede, or guide the DOG, not the ball. It’s all about the dog.
“…You might be interested to know that the designer of this innovation, Zac Chernick, has done extensive research on this subject and has analyzed hours of video and hundreds of photos. His conclusion is that this innovation enhances safety ….”
I respect the amount of time and energy that has been spent developing this box design. However, erroneous conclusions when analyzing research data are made all the time. Witness the vast number of “drug recalls” that have made the news. Sometimes, the “benefits” do NOT outweigh the risks of an innovation.
John, have you studied the photographs of this box in action through the link provided by Jackie? Do you see that this “raised section” moves and impedes the dog’s path to the box? Do you see how many times a dog’s feet have actually gone under this section of the box? The debate over whether this section is a training aide or not may be academic. ….but, in my view, had anybody asked those two judges and RD if this constituted a “safety hazard”, they might’ve agreed and pulled this box out of competition for that reason. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that anybody challenged this box on the grounds that it was a safety hazard…..only, the “training aide” argument was used.
Listen, if you and your club members want to convince yourselves that that obsticle is “part of the box” because it’s connected to a piece of matting which is then connected to the box so that your dogs can continue to run because they can’t do it without this “attachment” during a race … to say it as nicely as I can- it’s obvious to ANYONE who sees this that this ISN’T a “BOX INNOVATION”. You are trying to talk the rest of us into the fact that it is “part of thebox”. It’s not! You may have convinced yourself of this, but the rest of us are seeing this clearly.
Your “Rove-ian” tactics will not fly in the end. We can recognize propaganda when we see it.
BOX innnovation is great, however twisting the rules in this way is not sportsmanlike and I along with evidently many others on this blog are not buying these distortions. Perhaps your time would be better spent to concentrate on box design -not manipulations of the NAFA rules and attaching jumplike things to the box with rubber.
all semantics aside…this is safe?
http://www.cpollackphoto.com/gallery/3440292#193044776-L-LB
I would hate for my dog to get tangled in that mess!
OK, ya’ll - it is not a training aid. (Right!)
It is a fifth hurdle placed in the lane - there is no provision for a fifth hurdle in the lane. (No, I do not care that there is a continuous piece of rubber from the box to the fifth hurdle.
What happens, when at a tournament, a dog is injured and removed from the tournament due to this contraption flopping about in all directions? The crowd sees this, is this the impression a dog loving, safety conscious person wants to leave behind? Is this what NAFA means when it intends that all participants promote the sport as a pet friendly, fun-loving, family sport?
In perusing the BoD mtg minutes, it is painfully obvious that the objection was discussed exactly as it was submitted. In other words, experienced, wise, intelligent leaders with years of experience in flyball never raised the issue of “safety” or “adding a hurdle to the lane” versus “does this violate the rules about the box”.
Most will agree that the rules *as they are* do not specifically rule this box illegal. We knew that going in.
Adding this fifth hurdle is not innovation - teams train with a fifth hurdle during the time allocated to warm ups all the time. It was only a matter of time before someone observed the dimensions of the body of the old style springback and decided to take advantage of it.
If this attached fifth hurdle is the result of hours of study, how is it that the “innovator” deemed it safe? Maybe the study was directed more toward finding gray areas in the rules?
Or, maybe it was the intent that this bring the whole business of attaching things to flyball boxes in lieu of training into more focus? Could there be enough of a community movement to get the BoD to move on this? Or do they work with complete impunity?
I am asking, I have not been involved long enough to know from experience.
Thank you Jackie!! Picture #35 was all I had to see to convince me that this is not safe for the dogs!
Leave a Comment