Controversy.
“Noun: Disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated.”
It reminds me a little of the old Abbott & Costello skit ‘who’s on first’. Part of me has a sense of humor about some of this stuff and part of me says hey, this is serious so behave yourself! It is a tossup at the current time which side of me is going to win out here.
First, I must acknowledge that some folks in some regions do not experience the controversy. Other folks in other regions, however, experience it over and over and to them it is becoming a nightmare. I think this may be one of the reasons there has been a drop in NAFA tourneys in some parts of the country.
Second, I believe the Board of Directors needs to really look into the disparity across the country with respect to what is going on and why there is more and more outcry in NAFA flyball. It appears they are at times trying to understand what participants want but at the same time they appear to ignore logic and reason in favor of making an allowance for exceptions that may rarely occur.
Perhaps you’ve already read previous posts and comments on this blog about the breed challenge process proposal; and if you’ve read the outcome posted in the highlights from the August 2011 BoD meeting, perhaps you may wonder as do I why didn’t the board simply clarify the existing rule about how to designate your dog’s breed when applying for a CRN. Believe me, I’ve heard both sides of the argument, but it still boggles my mind why the rule was left unchanged and is still unclear yet a formal challenge process has been developed and will become part of NAFA flyball.
Maybe I am the only one, but I still prefer the adage ‘keep it simple’. To me the challenge process doesn’t fit with this philosophy.
And, there is another such rule that was tweaked during the August BoD meeting (and published in the highlights) that appears to have muddied the waters considerably from what I’ve been reading and hearing. It is about ‘inside interference’. Here it is:
“Inside Interference:
The underlined text should be added to page 12 of the current rule book:
(f) Inside Interference. If a dog or any team member interferes with the opposing team during a heat, the team causing the interference will forfeit the heat. This includes interference in the racing lane, in all in bound areas, and in the area where dogs are waiting to run. Interference is defined as impeding the other team’s dog from running its race. A dog chasing a loose ball into the other team’s area is not necessarily interference. In the event of interference, the judge will assign an estimated time to the team that was interfered with. The time will be marked as estimated and will not be used to determine placement. If a dog crosses the start/finish line after it has already successfully completed the course, it is not a flag. Effective October 1, 2011.”
The last sentence is supposed to be underlined.
What do you think or what is your interpretation?
I’ve been reading and hearing from many long-time flyballers and even they don’t understand this entirely. In my opinion, it is not simple. It is not clear. It has muddied the waters and it may cause untold controversy at tournaments in the future. It also appears to be, at face value, an unsafe rule.
(I think my serious side won out for the moment.)
Linda
4 comments ↓
Linda:
The following is an excerpt from the March 1996 NAFA News.
“Steve McAvoy
Chairman, Regulatory Committee
In this and the next few issues I would like to relate some examples a of what is and what is not interference.
Recently, I was questioned about an incident that occurred at a recent tournament.
During the second heat of a race between Team A and Team B, Team B’s 1st and 2nd dogs had already completed their runs. While the 3rd dog was going to the box, Dog #1 got loose and followed Dog #3 down the course. Dog #3 continued on to the box, triggered the box, got the ball, and returned over all 4 jumps. Dog #1 was caught and Dog #4 successfully completed its run.
In this incident, because all 4 dogs successfully completing their runs, this is considered a legal heat for Team B, interference should not have been called on Dog 1 as long as it did not cross over and interfere with Team A.
If you have any questions regarding this or other rule interpretations, please contact me.”
The additional language you quoted above is attempting to clarify the exact same issue. No difference. Hopefully the judges will understand it and continue to call it the way most of us have been all along (i.e. for well over 15 years at least now). There were some judges that were flagging a dog that had already successfully completed its run (or flagging the dog that was on the course at the time). Obviously, the dog that “reruns itself” would still be able to interfere with the other team. But it would never be a flag on that dog (it would be blow the heat dead and award the win to the team with which was interfered). A flag would indicate the dog needed to rerun. But it already successfully completed its run. So it can’t really be a flag, right? Hope that helps to clear up the confusion.
Leerie
Hi Leerie,
Thank you for the added explanation.
An errant dog; i.e., one that ‘reruns itself’ regardless of the order it reruns in; cannot a) interfere with it’s own team in it’s own lane and b) the line, box or head judge should not flag the errant dog in this instance provided all 4 dogs ran properly and completed the heat. However, if the errant dog crosses into the other team’s lane or interferes with the other team, then official interference would be called by the head judge.
If I now understand this correctly, I believe it would be helpful if the new sentence added to the Rulebook included this distinction (or other similar wording). Also, in the same section (Section 8.3 – The Heat), it would fit well under (i) Flags.
I don’t disagree with you Linda. I personally favor the phrase “in and of itself” after “it is not a flag”, or “in its own lane” before “If a dog crosses the start/finish line after it has already successfully completed the course.” However, what you see is what was passed. If the existing language causes confusion I suspect it will be further enhanced at some point in the future. In the meantime, the judges committee had a “judges chat” and we went over the new rule changes, so I’m hopeful that the judges are clear on this.
Good to know about the ‘judges chat’.
However, the Rulebook is a reference for all participants, including those running dogs, team captains, box judges, line judges, etc. It is my understanding that only head judges are allowed on the ‘judges list’ chats, correct? Thus, only head judges will truly be aware of the distinction with the new sentence in the rule.
Confusion is already out there based on the wording that ‘passed’ and was posted in the highlights. You and I know the new sentence required the added explanation you kindly provided here on this blog but there are many others who may not know and the confusion will continue.
I believe all participants deserve to know the specific distinction with the new sentence and it merits clarification to the wording in the Rule at the time it goes into effect, not after more confusion arises. It is not too late. There is no reason to wait for additional confusion at some point in the future.
Leave a Comment