You Make the Call
I am sure that most people that play flyball have heard the phase “Training in the Ring.” If you have not heard of it, you should know that “Training in the ring” is prohibited by NAFA and you should read the follow paragraphs taken from the NAFA Rulebook:
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.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.
The U-FLI rulebook does not specifically say anything about “Training in the ring.” However, it says that training devices can be used during warm-ups but must be removed before the start of racing. [1]
Based on this information, what do we know about “Training in the ring?” In my view, we know very little.
- What are the devices that are prohibited in the ring - tugs, Frisbees, toys, or a prop attached to a box?
- What techniques cannot be used - the use of a clicker and/or treats?
- Why does this rule exist - so a judge can use it where nothing else applies?
Again, I would say that no one knows. Therefore, we have a rule that prohibits something that is not defined in the rulebook.
You Make the Call - Should the “Training in the Ring” rule be removed from the rulebook?
- 1. Yes - The rule is not needed. (16%, 5 Votes)
- 2. No - Further definition is needed. (72%, 23 Votes)
- 3. No - Further definition is not needed. (13%, 4 Votes)
Total Voters: 32
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
Footnote:
[1] This paragraph paraphrases from Section 2.6 Warm-Ups in the U-FLI Rulebook
Related Post:
21 comments ↓
This is a very good question. This is a rule that resides inside “judge’s discretion” and has been inconsistently applied over the years.
A few years back, there was a team in an adjacent Region that had a dog that liked to go around the first jump. One day, when this team was competing, a teammember quietly walked into the ring and sat on the floor next to the first jump. Mind you, this was on the inside portion of the lanes and (what I would consider) behind the start/finish line.
People were just livid but, the Head Judge allowed it as long as this person remained in place for all the dogs. It appeared to me this was training in the ring. This person was acting as a guide to the dog(s) just like gating between the lanes.
Eventually, other Head Judges disallowed this practice but, it serves as a good example of a rule that I think should exist (we really should “train” our dogs before a competition–not during) but, is so subjective that it isn’t be applied consistently.
Has anyone taken a look (I am sure some have) at the British Flyball Association (BFA) Rule Book?
I feel this would be pertinent, in that its origin is the NAFA rule book.
You readily see the NAFA Rule Book origins, what is remarkable to me is how it has evolved.
For example, on this issue, the rule has been replaced with more definate language.
This is one of those rules that always bothered me. Not only is it vague, it is counter productive. You should always train in the ring. I train my dogs on every heat that I run. OK, here is an example of training in the ring.
My young dog is passing in his second tournament. The dog before him bobbles and therefore my dog winds up being about five feet early. My dog gets spooked and starts going slow into the pass. I back up and throw some big passes until my dog is running fast without hesitation. Then I tighten it up again slowly. I am training in the ring because I am reverting to the “technique” that I used to teach my dog to pass in the first place.
How about this? My start dog is bowing out, perhaps because of one of our dogs or the other team’s dogs, but it is causing his starts to be .1 bigger. I’m running anchor so instead of standing on his right side, I move and stand on the left side of the lane. This straightens the dog out and his starts return. After a few heats, I can move back to the right side. I’m training in the ring because my body is acting as a “device” or “prop” to influence the dog’s path.
Good trainers will train in the ring on every heat. There are already rules preventing the handler from crossing the start line and no part of the box can cross the box line. And there are rules to prevent “interference” by creating an unnecessary distraction to the other team.
It seems sometimes people worry too much about what people are doing in the other lane when they really should be focusing on what is going on in their lane.
In my region there’s a practice that I see happen at almost every tournament — dogs who aren’t ready to race (IMO) are put in anchor, held at the line until the team in the other lane is completely finished, then let go at the end. I’ve seen it done at every tournament I’ve attended in this region.
In other regions I’ve seen judges tell teams that they are training in the ring and that they need to either stop holding the dog at the line or pull the dog.
Because this pratice is so common in this region, there are a lot of dogs in the racing lanes that aren’t ready to race. I’ve never seen so many dogs cross over and chase as I have in this region. My dog, a height dog, has been crossed on in every tournament. Luckily she’s strong and doesn’t react to the other dogs, but other softer dogs don’t do well with this.
please note - no dog has ever been written up in this region. that’s NOT because this region has no aggressive dogs.
My question is - how does someone handle this? if the judges don’t stop a team from training in the ring, and as a result dogs who aren’t proofed are racing, how does a team protect themselves and their dogs from being crossed on? I don’t want our softer dogs to be spooked or worse, hurt.
Well to Robbie I’ve had judges flag starting from the left as training in the ring if it’s not done in ever heat. It just points to how subjective this rule is.
I agree with the portions of the rule that can be easily defined such as no props etc. As for training aids I laugh at all the squeaky toys I hear at our tournaments. How can a judge not call those, which are against the rules, but then flag changes in body position of running teammates. I don’t really know how you could define this portion of the training rules as techniques is just to vague, and so I would vote to remove it. The problem with all the rules is that there always has to be some jackass who looks for the loophole ruining it for everyone.
My thought is this, what we do in the runback is completely different than what happens on the actual course. Our dogs have been trained on the course, but, things do happen that we have to make adjustments during the racing day…is it training or reinforcing an already learned behavior? Is it training when my little mix will blow her jumps if I start her at 47 feet, so I move up and start her at 17 - and she does not blow her jumps? If I have an early or real close pass, she blows her jumps - so I hold and take a 3 to 5 foot pass..is that training? No, it is making adjustments. She is already trained on the course, on the box, get her ball and to return to her tug.
Is a person who releases their dog, yelling “jump, jump, jump, jump, hit it, jump, jump, jump, jump” training in the ring? I don’t think so, just reinforcing an already learned behavior.
There is nothing in the rule book that states where handlers have to stand to release their dogs…that is something that is a team issue, so we don’t get in each others way or the dogs way.
As for holding a pass with a green dog…well, how else is that dog going to get course time, with all it’s excitement. I agree, if you dog crosses, pull it. But, if it is just a matter of holding the dog to keep it on track, there is nothing wrong with that.
A few years ago, I had a little JRT that was pretty solid, but, for some reason the GSD on an opposing team was too much for her, and she would chase that dog down(and it was only this dog - she was a 12 lbs jrt and a 60 lbs GSD!). I had to modify her reward to reinforce that she needs to come back to me. Was this training, no, just changing things to reinforce what she already knew.
Jackie, in regard to starting your dog at 17 feet to keep it from going around, the answer is NO, you are not training in the ring. You are just accepting a reality and living with it. Now if you back up to 18, 19, 20 each time she does it successfully, then YES, you are training in the ring.
And as I said, I do not think this is wrong. It is exactly what I would do. Running dogs that aren’t ready is a different story.
Yes, I agree about running dog that are not ready, but, we have all had dogs that are rock solid in practice, and rock solid racing our team dogs, but get them at a tournament, racing dogs they have never seen, and it all goes out the window.
“As for holding a pass with a green dog…well, how else is that dog going to get course time, with all it’s excitement.”
isn’t this what warmups are for? to get the dogs course time without putting them in the race? Training in the ring is fine by me as long as it’s done during the warmup, but once the race is on, this stuff shouldn’t be happening. for the record, I don’t think using tugs, moving your release position, and yelling ‘jump’ is training in the ring.
The training in the ring rule is needed, but perhaps would need some further clarification. This too like so many things in the NAFA rule book. As a newly approved judge, I do enjoy the room for interpretation in the rules, but some days crave a little more black. It’s easier to point to a well written paragraph of the rule book than to have to extrapolate justification.
Of course my time through the judging program has taught me a valuable lesson, you can’t make a rule for all possibilities.
To me training in the ring prohibition is more about trying to prevent an unfair advantage than it is about training dogs. This of course is most important in division one where placement has concrete meaning in the region and nationally, but of course trickles into the lower divisions where we all know competition can run just as high. The problem with this is that teams are always looking for the “next thing” that brings better results, giving them the advantage. In competition, though, we must prevent advantages that are unfair.
I would suggest that there is a difference between “Training” and putting your dog into a position to succeed, such as letting go at the line, or starting up close, or holding your pass. None of this generally gives you an unfair advantage to win the race, only an advantage to finishing clean. So to the comment that you should “always train in the ring” I would suggest that you should always reinforce: Reward, Placement, Commands. This is slightly different than training true training in the ring.
So I guess that would suggest that the definition of Training in the Ring does need further clarification.
One word to green dogs, they should get their “ring time” during warms up, not in a real race situation. There is often enough excitement or activity during warm-ups to simulate a real race. Let the other team of course know you are warming up a green dog. Until they can complete that they should not run a full run in a race, in my humble opinion. Make friends on other teams that would be will to run their dog in a warm-up (we have a couple of “unbreakables” as we call them for this situation).
We have a practice strategy to stop crossing we do with one lane. We play frisbee with a dog right next to the racing lane. If a dog will play flyball without going after this dog and frisbee, it’s ready to race.
Training in the ring is definitely subjective. I have a some what green dog. She has severe confidence issues. During warmups another team was working with another green dog but this dog chases. When the dog went to cross on my dog the other team slammed a bat and yelled at the dog. The problem is it was in front of my very soft dog. Should I have complained to the judge, probably. Did I, NO… After the fact I spoke with the team and they apologized profusely and still feel terrible that my dog had to be pulled from competition while I try to build her confidence up more. It has been almost 6 months now. I am friendly with most teams so don’t want to cause problems.
Holding a green dog that chases is wrong and should not be done constantly. A dog can get some ring time by going to another teams practice or vice versa (if there are other teams in the area). My area has many teams and most would welcome you to come practice.
Reinforcing correct behavior is ok in my mind. A solid dog that does the odd chase I can understand holding them some or switch the dog to another position.
I see nothing wrong with moving your body position to help a teammate and dog. I also see nothing wrong with moving up and back on the lanes, holding passes slightly, etc…
I do not agree with training aids at or on the box during racing. Not only can it create an unfair advantage to that team it could actually become a safety issue. Look at the box in the other thread with the noodle jump attached. 9 out of 10 times nothing bad will happen but say a high drive dog on the other team bobbles, the ball flies over to that other box and the dog rams its neck into the side of the noodle jump. It may not hurt most dogs but you never know. It could cause some kind of damage to the neck/throat area. Same with someone putting the blinders on the side of boxes. What happens if a dog runs into it with an open up and cuts the cornea or something…
Just my 2 cents
I’m interesting in hearing more from Stuart about his interpretation for training in the ring: the unfair advantage.
When we ran my dog in her first tournament less than a month ago, we held her passes.
While we had won the division the day before, we lost that day. In my interpretation, it wasn’t an “unfair advantage” to give every win to another team though some teams may have been miffed that is wasn’t a true race with a held pass.
(honestly though, every team we raced was so supportive of us getting her out there!)
When she was crossed over on in a warm-up and then that same dog was racing anchor as well - we made a quick decision to hold her pass until that dog had triggered the box and was over 2 jumps.
It was a big hold - it was an obvious hold but in my mind it was better to have a positive experience in the ring for her and risk a “training in the ring” than to have her spook at the line.
I guess that is my point about “green dogs” Green dogs to me are race ready, but, how can we really make dogs race ready at practice - I don’t care how many teams you scrimmage, you can not re-create a tournament atmosphere. There is a complete different energy, the dogs get spun. This is a dog that goes down and back steadily at practices. You have great warm-ups, no cross overs; and put your dog in, say the last heat, and something just tells you to hold…your dog watching, pulling, etc. I think it is safer to hold the dog - and I would be thankful to an opposing team for doing this, and not care one bit that they did so. And as stated, not gaining an unfair advantage.
Thanks for you comments Stuart! I thought you put a great perspective on things.
I don’t consider holding a training in the ring issue. Sorry if I came across as such.
Holding a dog does not teach it not to cross the ring on another dog, it simply takes away the other dog from the equation and reinforces I go down to the box and come back, but it’s not training the dog not to cross. Though that’s just my way to interpret it. I can see how some people might argue holding as a training “device” but I don’t see it in my own mind.
Holding can however be a “Sandbagging” issue which is actually in the code of ethics and something to refer to the regional director. I don’t consider holding passes as giving a team an unfair advantage. Though I’m sure we might be able to come up with one or two reasons how it could in regards to break-out, taking 3/5 heats to five, etc… But would take these on a situational basis.
You will likely never see a head judge come and reprimand a competitor for “holding back” a dog that is known to cross as they are thinking of the safety of both there and the other team’s dogs. That being said if you must consistently hold a dog back at every tournament because that dog consistently crosses there is a question weather or not that dog should be competing. This of course is probably another topic as well. Because as a judge you may be asked to not run your dog if crossing is consistent.
A dog needs to gain experience. That should start in practice, solidify in warm-ups and all come together in a final heat. If you have a dog that crosses the most important thing as as competitor to do in my opinion, is once a dog does it is to immediately collect your dog and remove it from the ring this does two things
1) Shows to the other teams that you recognize the issue and are correcting for it
2) The dog learns that when it crosses it doesn’t get to play anymore. It’s important that the dog be taken to it’s kennel and not get to enjoy excitement of just sitting on the side of the ring.
I have a question about the green dog and ‘holding back.’ Isn’t there something in the NAFA bylaws about repeatedly holding back? I’m not sure what the intentions were with this rule–is it to apply to green dogs (as discussed above) or just to those who blatantly sandbag? I only ask because my former team would sometimes put the green dogs in as anchor (and imo, before the dogs were even ready for a tournament environment) and have the handler wait until the other team had finished prior to releasing. One time they were warned by the judge to stop doing this. I don’t think he referenced what rule–if it was ‘training in the ring’ or ‘holding back.’ Maybe it varies from Region to Region what is allowed?
Holding up passes up on a green dog is a compleltely different story than holding up passes just enough to ensure you win… but don’t break out in your division. The ‘holding back’ rule was likely designed to keep teams from cheating to win by padding their seed time and holding passes to ensure a first place ribbon!
Holding up a pass on a green dog is a completley different story. Dogs need to learn confidence and unless you have a wonder-dog… close passing takes time and patience. It just doesn’t happen over night for most dogs. I will admit that ’some’ dogs have no issues passing right from go, but this has been a rarity in my experience.
As for training in the ring - my team has been called for it by a Judge before and we were all kind of shocked when it happened. We have a dog who is no speed demon but runs better with lots of revving and someone running beside him up to the start line. We lost a heat because the Judge interpreted running down the lane with him was training in the ring. Needless to say - we don’ t do that anymore.
It’s a very interpretive rule and let’s face it… we ALL do it to a certain degree! If a dog is having an issue during a tournament don’t we all ‘adjust’ our routine to help the dog succeed? I know my team does. I’d rather hold up a pass a little on a dog having a ball dropping issue than reinforce the incorrect behavoir over and over and over again. Just my opinion…
Thanks Jean for clearing that up. I kinda thought that holding back thing was more towards the sandbagging, but wasn’t sure.
I’ve seen teams in my region do the running up thing with the dog–they don’t necessarily run all the way up to the start line, but the people do run ahead of the dog for a bit and let the dog pass them. I never really saw it as ‘training in the ring’ but more like motivation to make the dog more drivey (like how folks scream ‘ready, ready, ready’ and such). As far as I know, no one has been called on it here. Yep–I’d have to agree that it is in the eye of the beholder.
A head judge would still be well within their rights to telling the regional director that a team was sandbagging even if it’s a green dog. Weather anything comes of it will depend on the region you are in. Some might still consider this poor sportsmanship, even with good intentions, though most won’t mind. They might say that the last dog on the other team deserves a dog to run against, depending on line up holding up the fourth dog may mean the fourth/third dog on the opposing team may have less competition.
Naturally, most people are going to be quite understanding in a situation with green dogs, though.
A way around it is to submit a substantially “faster” seed time for that time, that way the other team is done long before the fourth dog goes (under most circumstances) So no holding back is required.
Isn’t the central purpose for the “TitR” rule about respecting other people at the tournament, not really about getting an advantage for yourself. It comes down to two things, TIME and Course Integrity.
TIME: People don’t want TitR because it wastes other people’s time and makes tournaments go longer. The rule discourages unready dogs and unready handlers from running.
Very few instances of TitR would give a competitive advantage, since dogs that ARE trained are clearly faster than dogs BEING trained.
In Agility, for instance, if you have to guide your hands in and out of the weaves for a dog that isn’t really ready to compete, you can turn a 4 second weave poll obstacle into a several minute affair.
Course Integrity: Dropped food is a major distraction and since food is the key motivator, if you allow TitR, you’re going to get following competitors who will be at a disadvantage. Squeeky toys also become objects to be fought over and thus encourage turf war fights between dogs and are also a noise distraction to other dogs.
I am only in my first year of training for Agility and Flyball, but I think the central issue is making tournaments run faster and more fair.
Several of the TitR issues that others have brought up in the comments, such as where you stand and where you let your dog go from, are STRATEGY. They do, in no way, effect the speed of the tournament in a negative way or provide any distraction to another dog or team.
Calling such things training is to make the word too vague AS IT IS APPLIED in the rules. Perhaps a fault of the vague language in the rules and perhaps the human rules-lawyer nature to make a point… but if you want to go that far, saying “good dog” at the end of a run would be positive reinforcement ‘training’ too.
IMO, there should be maximum freedom given to what people do behind the first gate, as long as it does not provide a sensory distraction to the other team. I.e. no enticing smells, sounds, or sights. The gate forward all the way to the box should be as uniform and clear of distraction as possible.
So the lady using herself as a shield on the first jump… against the rules. Sure it’s strategy too, but it’s a stop gap for a dog that isn’t ready, not a slight modification of a ready dog, and her being out there is a distraction to the other team. Distractions or not, the course integrity should be maintained and it’s clearly easier to do so with no human interference and uniform equipment. The woman at the first jump could be seen as both distraction and as altering the equipment (gate+guide vs. gate).
Somewhere on this site I saw someone mention painting/taping the bottom of the box white, to in essence simulate a jump board, was perfectly acceptable because it did not affect the dimensions of the box in any way. I believe the general concensus on that was that everyone agreed this was acceptable. So, then would it be acceptable to paint an orange cone shape onto the front of the box, for those dogs that respond better to that than the white paint? It should be no different in my opinion. One could argue that you are just decorating your box!
I would agree with you, since your dog could choose to ignore the orange part.
Jackie
Leave a Comment