SHEEP DOG TRIALS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20152, 12 January 1929, Page 17

SHEEP DOG TRIALS.

POINTS FOR " COMMAND."

CRITICISM AND REPLY. Recently a correspondent in a Bay of Plenty district wrote a criticism of an award made by a judge of a sheep dog trial at an A. and P. Show. The letter was forwarded to Mr. W. Whyte, of Napier, as representing the executive of the North Island Sheep Dog Trials' Association. Mr. Whyte replies: Before proceeding to briefly deal with this letter of complaint, I desire it to be Clearly understood that the executive of the association cannot allow itself to become a medium for the ventilation or adjustment of private grievances in respect cf sheep-dog trials, so long as the management of those trials is conducted in conformity with the rules and regulations laid down by the association. Were the executive so unwise as to become involved in the doubtful task of settling or disposing of personal differences of opinion arising from dissatisfaction with judges* decisions, it would merely bo encouraging and fostering dissension within tho association.

The executive committeo was duly appointed by the association to administer its ruling and policy in an impartial and tactful manner, and to uphold the prestige of the association and its affiliated clubs, to assist judges and officials, and to offer useful advice and information to members (who might be in doubt in regard to tho j-ules of procedure affecting the management of trials. And in this connection the executive is always open to accept logical suggestions in the direction of improvement for {he common good and advancement of trials. But. were the executive to depart from the general rules laid down by the association, and. for example, bllow itself to become a party to undignified disputes arising from imaginary grievances, it would very soon be a case of good-bye to the existing harmony and progress, and to the ordered management which now obtains throughout the ciubs affiliated to the.North Island Association. Now, as to the correspondent's complaint, while of the opinion that it is not always possible' or wise for one who has not actually witnessed the trials to pass judgment on the decisions given, I will, in this instance, though much against my inclination, endeavour to elucidate some of the points which appear to be worrying the correspondent. In the first place, the judge seems to have established quite r comfortable margin of points between each of tho placed dogs, including the runner-up. In fact, he apparently had no difficulty in arriving at his decisions. The point, however, that seems to puzzle the correspondent (an unplaced competitor) is how the judge arrived at his command points, especially in respect of the fourth-placed dog, which was responsible for an unfinished performance. After all, this is to be regarded as merely an item oi' deta.l in th<; sum total of points which are based on comparative or relative values, and probably had the judge been more exacting in regard to that one item of command, he would have been more liberal in respect of the points covering come other details of the dog's work. It must be remembered that there is no absolute dividing line as to where work ceases and command begins, so long as all errors have been accounted for. So, after all, tho position is as broad as it is long, and not the " farce" which your correspondent phooses to call it. The point cited may, on first thought, feppear to represent somewhat of an anomaly, but judges have slightly different ideas about adjusting their command points. Apparently tho judge in this case allowed the dog the highest margin of points in respect of command which it was possible to receive for an unfinished performance, the one point deduction off command applying to that stage of his work which the dog failed to complete."