huntergirlhotty wrote:Troy =
The purpose of the thread is to review the standard of HRC Finished level .......what the organization standard was origionally and supposedly is presently - and compare it to how dogs are actually being judged at that standard and see if the two are congruent.
Its a checks and balances.........
Give some situations of how dogs are being judged and see if that is in line with what the guidelines for tests and for judges........and see if they are even in the same ballpark. If it is or not ........ look at it, discuss it ........see if theirs room for improving our judges seminars ....... find out what's leading to the huge inconsistency ........ try to improve it if it needs improving. If its perfect.......... then fantastic !!!!!!! Find out what standard we want to have, get in agreement with it, change the standard if it needs changing.
Tough judges / easy judges = There really shouldn't be tough judges or easy judges. There should be tough tests and maybe easy tests. Judges shouldn't be passing or failing dogs. DOGS should be passing or failing a STANDARD. The dog should pass or fail itself on its own merit and performance based on a set standard.
When Judges are passing and failing dogs .........theirs your problem. The judge had some level or standard that it wanted each dog to meet and apparently it chooses which dog has to do what according to what the judge wants that day. The standard becomes foggy, cloudy, and incongruent. The dog is no longer running under standard but rather running under a judge.
Dogs are not running against a different standard every time they run or they shouldn't be. Its not one set of rules with one set of judges and another set of rules with another set of judges. All test should have the same standard that each dog is required to meet. Remember we aren't in the business of running dog against dogs. Dog is suppose to meet a standard level of performance.
Ideally we should like to have a tough test that test the dog at all aspects of the standard with a judge who upholds what the set and established standard is.
Hypothetically:
If you have one test and run 60 dogs in the same flight. Say 30 of them passed. That is 50% pass rate. If you repeat the same thing with a different test and this time split the 60 dogs into two flight of finished for 30 dogs each. Wouldn't it be reasonable to think that both flights would have similar pass/fail rates. But their would be some average .......coorellation......... ecspecially if you did a full fledge bonafide study -
What about if One flight passes 50% and the other flight passes 5% .
What accounts for the huge difference in the pass/fail rate ? Were all the dogs in one flight just dumb ???
Now ....... THE QUESTION IS : If both flights of dogs were judged under the same standard, what accounts for the huge difference in the pass/fail rate between the two flights when all the dogs ran the exact same test under supposedly the same standard ???
DID the dogs actually fail a STANDARD ? And was the standard for the two flights of dogs the SAME or DIFFERENT ??
Again - JUDGES should not be passing and failing dogs. DOG pass or fail themselves based on a Standard.
ENOUGH ALREADY!!! SHUUUSH! "QUIET!!"
Take all that to the HRC board.............Matter of fact, I suggest you take the entire thread to the HRC board!
