I know the Measuring debate has taken on a few twist and turns after my post, Large Chest Penalty so I would like to take a few minutes to summarize the debate. The post itself wasn’t very long, only two paragraphs, because I wanted the picture to tell the story. If you’ve read the first couple of comments, I think you’ll agree the picture did tell the story, but then it slipped into another realm when this comment was posted…
The wicket didn’t do this to this dog. BREEDING did! Life isn’t fair for this dog….not just flyball.
If you read my responds, you know that I rather lost it. I took it personal. If you know me, you know that I’m all of 5 feet 4 and 1 half inches tall. I have to throw in the extra half inch because I think I deserve it, but if anyone ask me my height I tell them I’m 5 feet 5 inches.
After that rampage was over, the same person made another comment…
I say, set the jumps where you want to jump. Declare your jump height. Forget measuring.
This seems like a radical departure to me. It’s like, we can’t figure out what method, both are unfair, so let’s not measure at all. I read a comment from another post that said “…I think that there is room for another organization - maybe called NOFLI - where we don’t even have jumps, just a box. ” This is what I think of when someone suggests using declared jump heights. It just seems like a lazy mans approach to me. I could be wrong.
Julia then posted an excellent comment on a “scientific method” to determine the best method of measuring. This is probably the best approach I’ve heard on this issue. I’m no scientist or engineer, but I bet there are a few people out there that could do this.
Then we received this…
More and more, I think the solution just may be a radical departure from the “status quo”. I don’t believe that keeping the wicket is in NAFA’s best interest. I also don’t believe that measuring the leg bone will resolve these issues either. Debating “which” method is better is also leading us further down the “measuring” rabbit hole.
Rabbit hole - By extension, the term has also come to signify any event, which triggers a completely unexpected, bizarre situation or paradigm.
How does measuring trigger a completely unexpected, bizarre situation or paradigm? If you figure this one out let me know.
Jackie made a good comment about jump heights based on breeds. This sounds good but the only problem would be mixed breeds. However, the idea may be worth exploring.
Summing it Up
- It is the Dog’s Problem
- Declaring Your Jump Height
- Rabbit Hole Reasoning (may have something to do with 2. Declaring your jump height)
- Scientific Method to Determine the Best Method (my favorite)
- Jump Height Based on Breed
Which approach sounds like something worth pursuing?
Larry
Addendum
The subject of an Electronic Measuring System was brought up, which really does sound like the best solution for measuring. I have it on good information that this was even suggested to the BOD sometime back and was deemed too expensive.
The system is such where the dog is walked down a path in front of the system i.e. through sensors while several different measurements were recorded. The information is then sent to a laptop computer and run through some algorithm where the correct jump height is given.
I suggest that this method be explored further even though cost maybe a precluding factor.
8 comments ↓
The measuring part needed. We can measure the withers height, Then we need a way to measure the area between the ground and the deepest point of the chest. This could be as simple a set of cubes that fit inside each other in 1 inch increments. The largest one that slides under is the measurement.
The math would be based on the ratio between the two.
Being arbitrary. the cube measurement is B, and the shoulder measurment is A. IF B is less than or equal to 1/3A Then 6″ will be subtracted from the withers measurement. IF B is greater than 1/3A then 4″ shall be subtracted from the withers. Lowest and highest jump heights don’t change. The inches subtracted and the fraction used were chosen for illustration. Opinion: I would stay less than 1/2 and more than 1/4.
This takes into account the dogs with short legs in porportion to the rest of the body.
Electronics that handled all of this would be best.
Now would the formula approach work?
A chart could be created with withers on top and cube on the side and the jump height in the intersecting blocks.
different enough?
I would really like to know more details about how this system works so thanks in advance for getting the info Larry. I understand what Judy said as well about dogs slinking….like they sometimes do with the “evil wicket.” But if the system works like a dog doing a short recall past sensors, the dog may not even notice. If it’s stress free and gets our poor beaten and battered judges out of the line of fire, that would be great.
If we take every single method and measure X number of dogs, X number of times using each method, we could really establish consistency using an analytical and statistical approach. And CONSISTENCY is the name of the game.
Let us know as soon as you get more info on this method.
Thanks
Julia
I don’t think a short recall would be the answer as some dogs will hop/jump when running toward its owner. I still would wonder what area you would get the measurement on? How would you be able to tell when the sensor is at the whithers? Are we going to put a sensor on the dog also? That would spook dogs also.
Also the idea with the cube under the chest. How many dogs are going to stand still for you to stack cubes up under them. By the time you get done you will have the dogs on their toes to get away from it.
LOL! You should know about the trials and tribulations of measuring. Come to think of it, my JRT kind of pops forward with all 4s at once when I call her. At some point she might come across as 5′6″ tall depending on how the system works! (How is it that JRTs can watch you prepare dinner on the kitchen counter at eye level anyway? Do they have springs in their pads or something?)
And like you said, some dogs can be taught “to work the system” like they do now while others shy away. I just don’t know enough about how this system works yet. I am sure we’ll get more info or have you already seen the specifications for it? I know you get more “in the know” info than I do.
I just really thought it might be good to get all the systems we can together and compare them for consistency using an analytical approach.
Julia
“Declaring Your Jump Height”
Hurdle height is not the only factor that limits speed, so why do we place so much emphasis on measuring one dog when it is the performance of a whole team we measure by racing them?
“Declare Your Jump Height” is my proposal to flatten the playing field for everybody based on declaring your jump height. It does away with measuring completely since it does away with determining jump heights based on one dog’s height.
Divisions are still based on seed times. Teams closely seeded in times play in the same Division.
Will it do away with “height dogs”? In a word, yes. BUT, little dogs will still be needed because of their intelligence, speed and trainability.
Advantages: No more incendiary arguments over measuring. There is no measuring.
Very few teams would run any faster than they do now. Instead of one dog (the HD) being required to run in every heat, all 6 dogs could be rotated. This could help small clubs tremendously.
An electronic method of measuring will not quiet those who have witnessed dogs being measured by as much as maybe a two inch difference. It is unlikely that measuring a leg bone will quiet many others. Subtracting 4″ below the shoulder was an arbitrary decision made at time when it made sense based on the dogs running at the time. 5″ is just as arbitrary and does nothing to fix measuring. We could turn ourselves inside out “looking” for the answer to measuring but, the debate (rabbit hole) will continue to rear its ugly head as long as we hold onto the “idea” that the jump heights must be determined by the smallest dog on the team.
It’s fair to everyone because wins/losses cannot be attributed to another teams luck or bad luck at the measuring results. Wins/losses will be determined solely upon athleticism, training and skill.
WRs would be tracked according to jump height. Instead of the Regular WR there would be the Regular WR at 8″ jumps, Regular WR at 9″ jumps, etc. for both Regular and Multibreed.
The system would end arguments over measuring since we would not determine jump heights based on one dogs measurement. Thus, the insanity created by the measuring debates would end.
Ridicule me if you must. The idea is gaining support as people look for other ways to present challenges to competitors. Think of it. By declaring your jump height, you open up the World Records to 8 teams in Regular and 8 teams in Multi-breed!
….or, you can keep arguing over how to fix “measuring”.
chrisandblast@hotmail.com
” By extension, the term has also come to signify any event, which triggers a completely unexpected, bizarre situation or paradigm.
How does measuring trigger a completely unexpected, bizarre situation or paradigm? If you figure this one out let me know.”
Let’s go back to the original question which you asked. “..a dog with a large chest and short legs that drives home my point on how the wicket penalizes such dogs. …Even if NAFA adapted the 5-inch vs. 4-inch calculation, the dog would still jump 11-inch jumps. For all of the wicket advocates out there, tell me how this is fair.”
You did a head fake towards the wicket which leads all discussion down the “measuring hole”. BUT, what I didn’t see and what the question is really about is the 4″ vs 5″ subtraction. “Measuring” has nothing to do with the “fairness” of 4″ vs 5″. Later in the discussion you say:
“The subject of an Electronic Measuring System was brought up, which really does sound like the best solution for measuring. ”
Let’s assume this is already adopted, out there in the field and being used. Tell me, how does the Electronic Measuring System make things more fair for this dog than the wicket? You still have to subtract 4″ or 5″. Even if 6″ were adopted, it is an arbitrary figure.
One other question that is not asked is, “Does the team want to use this dog as their height dog? Or, is this the “challenge” the team strategizes around to put a smaller dog in to lower the jumps? Do we want to take away that challenge?”
Declare your jump height.
“This seems like a radical departure to me. It’s like, we can’t figure out what method, both are unfair, so let’s not measure at all.”
It IS a radical departure. In a perfect world, even if we adopt the “leg bone” measurement, a whole new set of problems enter to plague us. Adding measuring other body parts to the formula will only complicate things further. In order to adopt any system, people have to agree. The more elements you add, the more points of contention you create.
All other things being ‘equal’, if we measure the legbone as the same length and come up with 9″ jump height for any dog with that leg bone, will a 9″ jumping Dachshund have the same advantage as a 9″ jumping BC?
Keep it simple. Flatten the playing field for everybody. “Competitor’s Choice” jump heights doesn’t mean everybody would choose to jump minimum. You’ve said it yourself elsewhere on this blog that 10″ jumps seem to be optimum.
chrisandblast@hotmail.com
Well as someone who has undergone measuring training I can assure you that the judges all seem to go above and beyond what is required of them. What has disgusted me are the participants. Dogs obviously trained to absurd stances and then owners arguing with you as you attempt to have them place the dog in the proper stance.
As a new face at the wicket alost every owner of a height dog declared “well he’s usually an inch lower”, but having raced in the region for some time now I’m well aware at where the dogs usually measure. Watching some folks go from region to region trying to find a soft supervising judge so they can get the height card they want.
I think declaring height is no solution, the 10sec height dog would disapear in a lot of clubs. At this point I think the best solution is a combination of methods with a computer program to spit out the answer. Measuring both leg length and height at withers would not be that time consuming and would be much less exspensive than a sensor system, and much less likely to have any technical difficulties.
Chris,
First off, this post has nothing to do with the 4” vs. 5” subtraction, for it was based on the comments from the Large Chest Penalty post.
You say that:
“Measuring” has nothing to do with the “fairness….”
I don’t understand this reasoning for “Measuring” has everything to do with fairness. The mere fact that almost no one measures in NAFA is in itself unfair. I think there is no need for me to explain this. Just read the comments on this blog on any of the posts about measuring.
Then you ask…
“…how does the Electronic Measuring System make things more fair for this dog than the wicket?”
With an Electronic Measuring System, you can get various number of measuring points, i.e. bottom of the chest to ground, top of head to ground, top of withers to ground, length of body, etc. Using other measuring devices such as Tactilus® Real-Time Surface Pressure Mapping Technology (http://sensorprod.com) studies can be conducted on many breeds and body types when jumping over various jump heights to determine the optimal jump height for each body type. This information would then be used to create an algorithm in the Electronic Measuring System to determine the best jump height for each dog.
The “declare your jump height” method just seems to me as giving up on measuring. I could be wrong but I think this will never fly (pardon the pun) with the NAFA flyball community.
If we could get the right heads together using the technology that I’ve described above an Electronic Measuring System could be the fairest way to put this topic to bed forever. It would take almost all of the human factor out of the equation.
Leave a Comment