I heard that despite these two missed calls, that Karen Holik did get called with Sizzle. Do you happen to have that also. It would be interesting to see what was different. Amy

If I remember right, Sizzle was not even close. Like the seesaw barley moved.

Hi Eric,

From a technical standpoint, what would be involved in instant replay and how much time do you think it would "delay" the rings?

 My thought would be that if you are the next dog on the line and then you have to wait for the dog prior to have a replay it could be a little nerve wracking.  I know that there can always be a delay for some reason or another.  Also, I know that Ken likes to keep things moving for the spectators so would probably not want to add delays although I do agree that it may be time.  These things are happening in 100ths of a second and it is close to impossible for a human to be 100% accurate on the call.

Thanks for posting

Mary Ellen Barry

Well I checked ont he 12 & 16" and several of them also missed contacts, but at the speed they were going - it isn't any wonder. I know in other sporting arenas they WILL do instant replays, but it will cost you: IE: PBR = $500 just for the judge to view it - if the competitor is proved to be correct then they don't pay, if the judge was correct, then it's $500 out of the competitor's pocket. Now, given we don't compete for money I would think a fair call for the Nationals would be $100 to check on a instant replay - and if you do, you had better be sure that you are pretty much 99% sure of what you are checking. I can't see it happening in this venue (USDAA) but maybe with the new Sweepstake Agility where money is involved. I heard this weekend of folk who leave the hair grow really long on their dogs, just in case it's a close call. (LOL can't say I'd be successful with that and the hairless wonders :) - or even with my old Rottie). As for Karen Holik & Sizzle, that dog was flying, and it was almost as if the teeter was just a tad slick. On video you can see Sizzle trying to break one step after the pivot point. Once again it brings into the factor of consistent equipment specs. As we use to say about the horses, you can train and train, but sometimes luck needs to be on your side. Lis' K

In the NFL they have instant replay, but they only use it for game changing calls. Like a touchdown or change of possession.

So you could wait til the end of the jump height and if there was a close call that would affect the top 3 placements get the instant replay out to be sure the correct call was made.

All you need is a laptop and a camera. 

in answer to : From a technical standpoint, what would be involved in instant replay and how much time do you think it would "delay" the rings? The software I (and by now many trainers also use now) makes it technically possible to really instantly verify what has happened.(as it is not replay but fast scrubbing to the exact location and freezing , step forawrd reversing etc less time than checking the right scribesheet or putting a bar back up or a judge going to the scribe to verify a correct mark on the sheet . Have tested it at other world event I can not name here and its really mindboggling how fast it can be done when setup right (directly replaying or even delayed projection at any choosen speed at any chooses location in the footage ! Not to mention the possibility at such an event to display the live feed or replay on a big screen this asside from the point if it would be appropriate to use it or not or what event is appropriate for it ( a championship is not the every weekedn trial ) They do use it in US football dont they ? ;) ( to HELP the judge ) on Lis her comment : being the technicall possibility is there such a fee per video review seems unneccesarry ( unless for some pockets) but a way to chalenge a decision ( with or without video) seems appropriate for the fairnes towards the end result in matter that are technically possible to distinguish ( like contacts as they are a yes or no situation anyway or like this case the position of the teeter etc) it is an alternative to for example electronic contacts ( more flexible and in the end cheaper ) IMO it would benefit the judges job, not to find a way to pick on a judge :) Guy

Lis write : and if you do, you had better be sure that you are pretty much 99% sure of what you are checking

:) check the clips others took before you do the request , sure way of not having to pay

Guy

not too much time to check clips unfortunately - but gee Guy, you are starting to sound like a NZ tight a$$  LOL

 

 

Lis' K

EL: So you could wait til the end of the jump height and if there was a close call that would affect the top 3 placements get the instant replay out to be sure the correct call was made.

seems like one of the reasons that finals are so exciting ... is watching a run ... and immediately knowing whether that run has or has not taken over the lead ... waiting a brief few seconds for replay review immediately after a run might conceivably work ... but it would be different to go through the entire height class waiting until the end to then be told who may or may not have won ...

EL: All you need is a laptop and a camera. 

using only one camera would require finding a particular angle from which you could see all three contacts ... or perhaps all six contacts (ups and downs) ... not sure how you would be able to see both sides of the aframe and the dogwalk ... so i guess you would probably have to just focus on the down contacts ... even then, you would likely end up placing the camera outside the scoring/announcing booth ... so you would now need to relay information to and from the judge inside the ring, the camera judge, and the scoring/announcing booth ...

not saying it's impossible ... just wondering if it's really quite so simple ...

The judge set the tone in the Veterans Grand Prix. She made it clear she wasn't going to call anything but a blatant teeter flyoff. She was consistent in her calls. Pat P.S. You can be assured that every competitor in the Championship Grand Prix knew what her teeter calls would be like before they ran.

Greg : so you would now need to relay information to and from the judge inside the ring, the camera judge, and the scoring/announcing booth ... not saying it's impossible ... just wondering if it's really quite so simple ...

 No isnt all that easy using smoke signals , or having to yell accross a field ;)

it is NO problem using multiple camera to the same laptop/software or even different laptops and relaying info to the various locations ( or even the signal itself ) , its no problem to "move "a camera to the various point , its no problem to even tag some sections to retrieve them instantly when needed rather then scrubbing through a run . its even very simple to have the timing info and handler info trigger and track the data and relay it to whereever needed . Using a VCR could pose a problem but not with what is available today . except for the visual checking by the judge the rest can actually all be setup automatically ;) is just a different approach ... electronic contacts and other sensors and actually way more flexible and feasable

reviewing ( doubtfull) situations woult be seen in a matter of seconds even while the run is still going on

but actually I have seen trials using all electronic contacts and just as a timer there was a display that instantly showed if and which  contact was a hit or a miss . 

 

Guy

The dog leaving when the board is 12" off the ground would not be considered blatant? Yes, she set the tone of leniency and was stuck with it...to the point where it became difficult to know where to draw the line. It is not acceptable to be "consistent" if the calls are wrong in the first place. And, I'm not sure she *was* consistent. (Eric there was a 22" dog that *was* called for a flyoff whose performance did not appear any different than Blast's, do you have that one?).

Who is gonna wanna be a judge anymore with this kind of banter? Kudos to the judges for at least stepping up and serving the sport instead of nattering on some website.

Teeter performance calls vary from country to country, and since this was an international competition, it is very possible that the two performances you deem "flyoffs" are perfectly acceptable. The trend in American agility has been drifting more and more toward European style calls on the teeter, particularly at the highest levels of competition: finals rounds. Additionally, I am certain this judge was well briefed and well prepared to make whatever calls USDAA has trained her to make at a national final level competition. I think it is disgraceful and disrespectful treatment toward a very fine judge that you question her calls. She was extrememly consistent in her calls, and did a great job. I wonder if you possibly are trying to drum up business for "instant replay," since you host a video company? I think if you wanted to suggest that "instant replay" may be something to consider in the future of our sport, private emails to Ken Tatsch regarding this subject would have been more appropriate, rather than trying to demean two national title winners as you have done. Another thing that occurs to me is that your girlfriend's dog came in 4th place, less than a second out of first in the 22 inch class, and perhaps you have sour grapes because if the first place dog had been called for a flyoff, then your girlfriend's dog would have made the podium rather than being one place out. I also know that Susan Garrett has helped build your business immeasurably, as she has mine over the MANY years I've known her and called her a friend, and I wonder about your loyalty toward your friends, because demeaning someone's national championship by saying perhaps they shouldn't have received it doesn't seem like a nice way to treat a friend. Just some thoughts. Sarah Scott Dow

Would be nice if you exercised full disclosure in your post and let readers who came here from your emails know that you might be viewed as having a personal reason for going down this path. It is unfortunate since you have an otherwise interesting website. Guy's point is right on, it is just a matter of time before electronic contacts are standard (think "Hit-It" boards built in to the AFrame and Dogwalk down/up contacts and a Hit-it in the teeter down contact in series with an additional sensor for contact of the teeter with the ground).

The previous two post are ridiculous.

Yeah I have a personal reason, I have an analyitical mind and a desire to know the truth. The main reason I started videoing in the first place.

Earlier in the weekend I took a look at Aframe calls in Steeplechase finals. So it was logical to look at the teeter calls in the Grand Prix. So much for the 'sour grape' theory.

Ken has his own video kiddies filming the event. So it is highly unlikely I would ever see a dime from him for doing anything. Actually I'm pretty sure he doesn't really like me. I've had people email me asking to buy this video or that, and I've said no. I'm not motivated my money, this is purely a passion of mine.

I used to be a USDAA judge and had my fair share of criticism, it goes with the job. But I actually never criticized the judge or even mention who it was. I actually defended the judge and all juges, saying "It is impossible for any human being to be right 100% of the time."

Nothing I said takes anything away from Susan or Rhonda accomplishments. Where did I say their medals should be stripped??? They won fair and square. I'm quite confident that if I called Susan up right now, she would support what I'm saying.

I'm just trying to improve the sport, by suggesting maybe it's time for instant replay in the finals or some sort of electronic contact judging.

Would it be disgraceful and disrespectful to a very fine president if I questioned whether we should be in Iraq?

Would it really do any good if I sent George Bush a personal email telling him I thought the war in Iraq was a bad idea?

Here is the rule straight from USDAA website.

1. See-saw not touching the ground before the dog leaving, but after it begins to tilt, is a fly-off penalty

When did the rules change??? Was there a special rule in the premium just for finals???

 

Sarah : as you are posting the same comment here as on a other list I find it appropriate to give the same reply here :)

 to your statement : The trend in American agility has been drifting more and more toward European style calls on the teeter, particularly at the highest levels of competition: finals rounds. to which I reply

Oh really ?

 can you specify which organisation and type of finals that would be please ? How many European countrys were at the GP ? Also please define European style ? ( as individual EU countrys/judges can not even agree or interpreting it the same !) And I would think that the various spectators at a recent major world event would not be able to relate to the just "below parallel" statement as being acceptable ! And another EUorganisation/country would call a dog "falling" off a DW as unsafe performance and add a fault to it but performing a lets see who can jump the furthest from a horizontal SS would be a bonus ?

 People please... Europe consist of many small countrys with all their own interpretations , hardly appropriate to generelize it as a EU style /trend

regards Guy Blancke

teeter performance is hard. you have to watch two things simultaneously, the contact zone and the movement of paws in and out and the board relative to the ground. it was probably easier before we taught our dogs to be super confident on the moving obstacle and slide up and down the board. but now, it's pretty impossible. one's eyes can't focus on the two things at the same time. it's impossible. /amy

if someone who utters critique to someones post or opinion would be more than just a Guest ;)

Please do not think that Eric posted this teeter fly off blog because I wanted Pickle to be on the podium. We did not discuss it and I never mentioned it to anyone. Pickle had an amazing weekend, making it into the Steeplechase Finals, Grand Prix Finals and Team Finals. I am thrilled with his 4th place finish in GP and would not trade it for anything, including a higher place. We did a great job together as a team, I am forever happy and do not want to be included in the reason for the discussion of instant replay in agility.  Also, I have 100% respect for Karen Gloor, I was a member of her Good Dog Agility Club when I lived in Arizona.  When I went out to get my ribbon she tried to shake my hand and I grabbed her and hugged her instead.  I specifically told her "thanx for judging" before I took my ribbon and left the ring.  ffluffy

I found it interesting at NADAC finals back in September they didn't have the seesaw in the final round. I wonder if it was to avoid controversy like this?

I made a video of the teeter performances, you can find it here http://agilityvision.com/videos/grand-prix-final-teeter-instant-replay

GB:  it is NO problem using multiple camera to the same laptop/software or even different laptops and relaying info to the various locations ( or even the signal itself ), its no problem to "move "a camera to the various point, its no problem to even tag some sections to retrieve them instantly when needed rather then scrubbing through a run . its even very simple to have the timing info and handler info trigger and track the data and relay it to whereever needed . Using a VCR could pose a problem but not with what is available today . except for the visual checking by the judge the rest can actually all be setup automatically ;)

OK ... demonstrate how reliable such a system can be ... how it will perform show after show ... without glitches or bugs ...

again ... i'm not saying it's impossible ... i am saying that i wouldn't even think about something like this until it was demonstrated to work reliably ... it would be a nightmare for the system to go down in the middle of a particular height class ... particularly if a judge had used the system earlier in the height class to check a call ... you would want everyone in the height class to run under similar judging ... but you would not want spectators and competitors to sit there through a seemingly interminable delay ... nice little dilemma ...

GB:  I have seen trials using all electronic contacts and just as a timer there was a display that instantly showed if and which  contact was a hit or a miss .

can you describe the type of sensor being used ... my experience with touchpads ... those i've made ... AND ... those i've bought ... is that they are a bit inconsistent ... good enough for training purposes ... but not necessarily for judging ... perhaps you have seen better equipment ? 

the pads i've encountered have spots that are more or less sensitive ... depending on their internal structure ... and ... these differences in touchpad structural sensitivity seem to be magnified if you are using the touchpads with dogs of vastly different weights ...

keeps amazing me that when purely from a technical standpoint an issue is raised it has to revert to insinuating that the intention is to blame a judge or insinuate the poster getting some personal profit out of it all ?

whatever the guidlines where/are what is wrong if it is technically possible to help the difficult task of judging for example without also instantly dismissing it as a waist of time or unpractical etc ? IMo a technicall help does not mean one does not trust a judge but rather the opposite as a helpfull tool . we went to electronic timing didnt we ? tennis has electronic means of making judges errors less, athletics have it even ( even if it started with a putty board ( longjump ) )

it is disgusting to claim that the start of this tread was for a personal profit I believe Eric has posed a honest question to which there are several possible (simple) solutions so whats wrong with it . Just becasue we ( eric and also me ) happen to have some tools to do this with( or due to experience have found out that it could be used in a simple way) does not mean it should be dismissed as garbage . good ideas and tools do not always come from the powers that be !!

after all so far it has been going about issues that have a black and white situation but seems that for whatever reason grey has to find its way in all of this

If a clicker trainer needs a hititboard becasue otherwise they cant get the timing right ( speed) but yet at the same time an even more difficult situation can not be helped isnt it after all to make the situation as equal as possible in the end for each one involved ? but then again its already hard to build 2 courses next to each other that supposedly should be the same ;) ( I always learned that math is an exact science , an inch is an inch , 25 degrees is what it says )

 Eric did not insinuate anything IMO, he noticed and showed the facts and asked himself a reasonable question . I personally do not care who happens to be in the footage as for me that is totally beside the point , the results are as they are and all of them deserve it as it is !!

I for one can tell you if I were judging I would put my cam up and run the software and whenever in doubt go and check it out and have a good feeling that I make a even better call than woudl be possible otherwise .

 footage might not be allowed to question a call but what prevents someone from veryfying his own calls ? similar to go and check if a call is noted by a scribe

 funny thing is as I mentioned before about electronic contacts , one of the reasons it hasnt taken on is the critique as then a judge would become "lazy" haha

the whole concept might for some be uncomfortale , or unusual , after all it is not all that silly

they used 2 timing divices didnt they ? what if that happened at a regular trial ?

Guy

they only thing E did wrong was the title of the whole thread ( using the names ) but than again that prob what made people look at it ;) Guy

I'd think the touchpad is a better solution than video (assuming as Greg points out) they are sufficiently reliable for the wide range of weather conditions and dog weights etc. The touchpad solution would have the biggest benefit of instant recognition of the dog hitting the contact. It could light a light on a scoreboard or some such which would actually enhance the audience appeal. Unlike instant replay it would not require people to choose to view or not view a video (no matter how fast it was available), no question about lighting, camera angle(s), handler in the way of one or more cameras etc. My background is in high speed factory automation and there are many sensor systems out there that could work in a wide range of environments; it is all a question of money.

In the flyball world everything changed (for the better) with the introduction of sensors for timing and detecting early passes, it took the human line judge out of calling early starts and passes and now everyone really complains if manually timing/pass judging has to be used. Maybe touch pads will have the same impact for agility. Steve

Just wanted to say THANKS to Eric for posting video from the Nationals... the USDAA site reporting was a bit of snore... but the AV videos are GREAT! Got any more in the hard drive o' yours that you might want to share!?!? : ) Off to make dinner and walk dogs... Katie

GF : OK ... demonstrate how reliable such a system can be ... how it will perform show after show ... without glitches or bugs ...

one does need to get a change to do this right ? it took a while to "perfect" the el timing , it took a while to "perfect" the scoring software also (if ever finished) . For this purpose the equipment and/or software is available as is ( and not even specifically designed for this)

 Btw kind of cool the splashdogs use a videocamera to measure the performances

So far no one has intentionally set the situation up for this purpose .

 GF :can you describe the type of sensor being used ... my experience with touchpads ... those i've made ... AND ... those i've bought ... is that they are a bit inconsistent ... good enough for training purposes ... but not necessarily for judging ... perhaps you have seen better equipment ?

 I have no idea what type of sensor (structurally) etc it was ( do have some footage of it somewhere) , but it was bulky , lots of cables etc etc .so IMO the route of video is way simpler and more flexible especially to eliminate the points you mention (sensitive spots etc) of course I agree with you when you say "i am saying that i wouldn't even think about something like this until it was demonstrated to work reliably " but thats why one would have to set it up and learn form the real practical aspect in terms of positions, equipment, backup and predefining how to use it etc the fact that certain software is capable of instant replay while keep on recording , or to tag certain locations as they happen in case for quick lookback with addition the library structure ( this is all way beyonf the basic video tape one has to rewind or copy) plus the fact that various sensors could even be used to trigger certain tagging point , handlers data etc etc (in later tage)

 the tools are available but as with any tool one needs to know how to use it ;) or adapt it for a slightly different purpuse Greg, feel the urge to brainstorm about it ? ;)

on a side note : have been asked to make the footage of the FCI WC avaialble for judging seminars (EU) . suspect they want to learn from mistakes and impracticalitys  ;)

 

Guy

Eric writes: >>Here is the rule straight from USDAA website. See-saw not touching the ground before the dog leaving, but after it begins to tilt, is a fly-off penalty <<

 Good that you bring up the actual rulebook language. One item that has been mentioned repeatedly on the USDAA judges list is that the USDAA rule book does not actually define what "leaving" a contact means. And it's a pretty lively discussion when this comes up. To date, no consensus on this has been reached by the judging corps with some very senior judges holding quite different views.

 Here a snapshot of the issues with the definition. To some judges, "leaving the contact" means all four feet are no longer in contact with the board (let's call that Interpretation #1 - partial aerial dismount). To other judges, "leaving the contact" means at least one foot made contact with the ground prior to any paw hitting the yellow zone (let's call that Interpretation #2 - partial dismount). To still other judges, "leaving the contact" means no portion of the dog's body is still over the plane of the obstacle (Interpretation #3 - complete aerial dismount). And then there's the stance that all four feet must have hit the ground before one can say the dog has truly completed the action of "leaving" the contact (Interpretation #4 - complete ground dismount).

The teeter of course adds an extra dimension to this issue of "leaving" since the board must have touched the ground before the dog "leaves" the contact. There is a further complication in that there is a perception in the judging corps that the majority of European judges are employing either Interpretation #3 or #4 for teeter judging while we have other domestic organizations that are firmly specifying either #1 or #2.

Why would the definition of 'leaving' be an issue, you might ask? Okay - Scenario A: Dog has a fast Aframe/dog walk and galloping pattern such that (as naturally happens in a gallop) all four feet are in the air and are not making contact with the board at moments along the span of the contact. This plays havoc with Interpretation #1 since there are "missed" contacts at multiple points on the ramps and can be a "missed" contact for a dog that is in the air over the actual contact zone during that point in his gallop but manages to engage one or more paws at the very base of the contact. Some judges like to interpret that the dismount started when the dog was completely in the air while over any portion of the contact zone and that any subsequent contact with the zone is purely incidental. So it's a missed contact under Interpretation #1 & fault-free under Interpretations #2, #3 & #4.

Scenario B: Dog 'leaves' the Aframe/Dog walk contact one inch above the contact line and lands at the base in a perfect 2 on/2 off or 1 rear toe position. This is a missed contact AND an off-course under Interpretations #1 & #2. (Not to mention pretty damn hard to judge for Interpretation #2 since now the judge not only has to look at the contact but to hazard a judgment as to whether the front feet hit the ground before the back feet hit the contact). Under Interpretations 3 and 4 however, there is no fault.

Scenario C: Dog performs the teeter in a fast controlled manner but 'leaves' the teeter by virtue of his rear end slamming the teeter down as he is dismounting (and having lost contact with the teeter prior to it actually hitting the ground). Under Interpretations #1 & #2 he is faulted since not even one paw comes in contact with the ground before the teeter does. Under Interpretation #3, he may or may not be fault free depending on whether a portion of the trunk of his body is over the plane of the teeter at the point at which it touches ground. Under Interpretation #4, he is fault-free as long as the teeter hits before all four of his feet are on the ground.

To come full circle... of the contacts replayed in Eric's video, the following judgments could be made subject to the possible USDAA interpretations:

Decaff: fault-free under Interpretations #2 (teeter hits the ground before any feet do) and #3 (portion of dog's body still over the plane of the contact when the teeter hits the ground), and #4 (teeter hits well before all four feet engage the ground). A fault is only called under Interpretation #1 because all four of his feet leave the teeter before it hits the ground. Video replay not really needed for these determinations.

Sterling: exactly the same as Decaff; faulted only under Interpretation #1 and fault-free for all other Interpretations. This performance seemed much more on the edge & I needed video replay to accurately apply the Interpretations.

Blast: faulted under all Interpretations (#1 - all four feet left the board before it hit ground, #2 - at least one foot hits ground before board hits, #3 - no portion of the dog's body is over the board as it hits ground, and #4 - all four feet appear to be on the ground before board hits - although I'll qualify this last by saying this particular replay video is not good enough in flash format to really make the interpretation #4 accurately).

So, until and if USDAA locks down the language on this, judges have some latitude in their interpretation on this. Karen Gloor appeared to have adhered very consistently to Interpretation #4 in the GP rounds she judged. Regardless of judge’s interpretation of course, there is a finite point in time at which the judge has to determine whether or not the dog has met their criteria of “leaving” & it would be very helpful if the judge had the option of asking to view a video to verify they made the correct call).

have one problerm with them , they are not capable of distinguishing what hit them , be it the dog or dirt or even vibration of the obstacles. Steve you have a point about the angles and amount of cameras but a similar issue arrizes with the amount of contacts and their connections, relaying the information etc . heck almost the only thing that is hard to judge electronially is a refusal everything else can be checked but how far will you go in the amount of equipment You mention that its a question of money . if that is plentyfull than one can go a long way either way each will have some issues to resolves in the case of using cameras knowing were to set them up is a plus and some people have now some experience in that area while others have more experience in the sensor department and actually both can even work together ! one doesnt even need measuringtapes anymore as one can precisely locate things from a single videoshoot . hey that would have been a way to match the courses in different rings ;) anyway I dont think the issue here is to make everything measurable and automatically but having an aid to make some of the judging easyer . afterall we dont want the judges to loose their job, is not all that fun without that person in the ring ;) and give everyone a tag and one doesnt need gatestuwards :) Tomorrow you can setup a cam and let the avaialble software , takes a bit longer to sensorize all the equipment and let them interact with all the various possibilitys Guy

TinWhisker : there is a finite point in time at which the judge has to determine whether or not the dog has met their criteria of “leaving” & it would be very helpful if the judge had the option of asking to view a video to verify they made the correct call).

now that is nicely put into words , a tool for the judge , not the handler ! 

rule book does not actually define what "leaving" a contact means

can understand that , I am defenatly not an english major or so but I read leaving as being in the process of .

left, not in touch with, not in contact with  for example would make a big difference not ?

 

hihi , accidental contact... probably accidentally on purpose
hit it accidentally so  didnt hit it but it still hurts ;)

 

Guy

 

GB: keeps amazing me that when purely from a technical standpoint an issue is raised it has to revert to insinuating that the intention is to blame a judge or insinuate the poster getting some personal profit out of it all ?

GB: of course I agree with you when you say "i am saying that i wouldn't even think about something like this until it was demonstrated to work reliably " but thats why one would have to set it up and learn form the real practical aspect in terms of positions, equipment, backup and predefining how to use it etc

OK ... Guy ... the technical and the human ...

I can certainly understand being upset about this thread ...

Two people who are both excellent competitors and trainers, who work hard to make themselves as good as they can be, who have the good fortune to go out and win a national championship finals, under the same rules and judging as everyone else that day ... Also two people who are very giving of their time and expertise ... And a judge that was in the ring under enormous pressure, surely doing the absolute best she could ... And all kinds of people who worked hard to help put the event on ... They all now have to deal with hearing / reading / rehashing about this ...

You are right that there must be some interest in experimenting with the various technologies before people might be able to come up with a way to perhaps provide a useful and reliable tool ...

But given how far this stuff is yet from being useful and reliable enough to be implemented at a national championship final ... I sympathize with all the various people I mentioned above ... I doubt that I would have too much patience for this thread either ...

GB:  the tools are available but as with any tool one needs to know how to use it ;) or adapt it for a slightly different purpuse Greg, feel the urge to brainstorm about it ? ;)

Please don't take my feelings personally ... Sure, I would be glad to brainstorm ... I do think there is a time and place for that ...

However, since the possibilities of the various technologies are so clearly just that ... possibilities ... so early in their potential development and experimentation ...

I think it would be better to thank the judge for her efforts, the volunteers for theirs, congratulate the winners, and all the competitors ... and move on with the brainstorming in another time and/or context ...

It is bad for the sport when bad calls are made at the National Finals level. It is also not fair for the other exhibitors who ran. Is it fair to not call teeter flyoffs, but still call runouts/refusals/dropped bars? I bet those people who dropped a bar wish that had been overlooked. Don't shoot the messenger (Eric) for pointing out what many were saying and thinking in the stands. I applaud Eric for having the courage to stand up in a public forum and point out that the Emperor has no clothes. Should Eric have stood silent just because quote, "Susan Garrett has helped build your business immeasurably, as she has mine over the MANY years I've known her and called her a friend". One could as easily say you are supporting S.G.'s flyoff in this public forum simply because she is your friend and helped you financially by helping you build your business. I notice that you don't take Eric to task for showing Blast's flyoff, only your own financial supporter. Pat

Firstly let me congratulate all the finalists and placement winners of the USDAA Championships and to Karen Gloor for her judging.

Teeter calls have always been a heated topic of discussion. Especially when a major class or championship is won or lost on such a call.....and this year has been no exception for both USDAA and AKC....

However isn't the discussion of whether the calls were good or bad rather pointless as the competition is over. Would it not be better to focus on the use of technology to help our judges do their jobs more accurately and/or alter the teeter call definition to enable it to be judged more easily.

With today's level of competition when you win or lose by .01 to .10 isn't it nice to know that with electronic timing that it is the correct outcome. Likewise wouldn't it be nice to know that if you got a call for a missed contact or fly off that it is without doubt the correct call.

As of today without instant replay or electronic aids for judging the judges call is final and congratulations to the winners!

First of all, I just wanted to say thanks to Eric and let him know how much I appreciate both of the websites. I am in Australia so it is really good to have access to the videos. Of course, sometimes I get caught up in watching them when I should be working but that's another story. :-)

There has actually been a recent rule change here in Australia with ADAA (which is our equivilent to the USDAA) with regards to contact judging and it was one that I personally wasn't particularly happy with. The following scenario that you described is what it has been changed to, however it is not deemed wrong course but just a course fault if the dog touches the ground with any part of it's body prior to touching the contact area.

" Scenario B: Dog 'leaves' the Aframe/Dog walk contact one inch above the contact line and lands at the base in a perfect 2 on/2 off or 1 rear toe position. This is a missed contact AND an off-course under Interpretations #1 & #2. (Not to mention pretty damn hard to judge for Interpretation #2 since now the judge not only has to look at the contact but to hazard a judgment as to whether the front feet hit the ground before the back feet hit the contact). "

As you mentioned this is particularly hard to judge as somehow the judge needs to be able to watch both the top and the bottom of the contact areas as well as the ground all while some dogs are travelling at warp speed. What I found at recent comps, particularly with one of the new judges is that the 2o2o performances were being scrutinised quite considerably with long deliberations over whether it was a fault or not at the end of the run and then the running contacts with perhaps just a toenail in weren't even given a second thought. Now I am certainly not blaming the judge for that but I  do feel that this rule is just too hard to judge.

I feel it would be quite easy for a fast, big striding dog to step over the down contact on the dog walk and then stop in the perfect 2o2o and I cannot see the safety issue in that (which was one of the supposed reasons for the rule change and it was also supposed to make it easier to judge!!).

 The final reason we were given for this rule change was to bring our association in line with the rest of the world but I have not yet found anything similar in any of the major agility associations that I have looked at on the internet.

Does anyone else know of an association with a similar rule?

It is interesting to note that a lot of the more experienced judges have stated that they would not judge the contacts this way but will still judge contacts the same way they always have. I think that says it all!!

Thanks again Eric for all of your wonderful work in allowing us to have access to all this agility info. It really helps feed my addiction!! My husband says I am obsessive compulsive in regards to agility but I prefer the term passionate.

See ya

Maria Thiry

With all due respect to everyone regarding the suggestion of using sensors to detect contacts, I'd like to chime in here. For the record I am not calling the performances or judging in to question, I am only discussing technology.

Let me set for a second my background, I am a die-hard geek and I would consider myself one of the pioneers in the use of electronics and computing for timing and scorekeeping for the sport of dog agility. There were possibly others before me but when I started in 1998 I don't recall any. I have looked into and developed systems that use Olympic quality electronic timing, wireless scribesheets with barcode scanners, voice recognition and pretty much anything else you can dream up. I’ve got loads of ideas that are just starting to appear in use. (Liked those plasmas did you? ;) Thanks again to Tim, Clean Run and the USDAA for making that one possible.) The system I built was actually fully utilized and featured in the Tournament Times Daily as early as 1999 but was never officially recognized and most folks in agility today wouldn't even know we had it for the GP and CH back then. As recently as two years ago it also even posted the results in real-time to the web to a site that few have ever seen. (Want a look? Click on the GP Finals links @ http://www.realtimeagility.com) I finally gave up hope and now I just try to help support the outstanding efforts of Tim Verrelli.

Now with my geekdom credentials out of the way, I looked into specialized sensors a while back and finally contacted a vendor this past February. Like Steve mentioned above there are a variety of sensors and cost is definitely the barrier to entry. The system I looked in to uses printed circuits on a polyester substrate that connect to modules that are networked together to a PC. The sensors are disposable and can and would likely be replaced for each height, they are the 'cheap' part. The system has its own software or allowed use of an SDK that would be programmed against. The sensors come in various sensitivities and rendered on the screen would be the 'toenail' or paw print like you would see in a topographical map or a 'Hollywood-Predator-Style' heat map. They are designed in such a way that vibrational interference is not an issue and would not trigger a false positive. Hell if you wanted the system could even be tuned for each dog based on their weight. The cost on the quote I got for one ring, drum roll please....roughly a mere $60K for all three contacts, including an additional sensor that would conclude a dog was present in the down contact of a teeter as the teeter itself was in contact with the ground. Oh, I forgot the PC that needs to be present as well and the cost of developing the 'custom' software to manage it and altering the contact equipment to accept the sensors as to not alter the surface of the contact.

Considering all the whining that I have gotten for having used wired electronic timing in the past, I imagine that the 'whine-to-wire' ratio for this setup would be through the roof...interestingly enough the timing gear used at the IFCS WAC this year was wired and I don’t recall hearing a *peep* about it. Until whining and the cost of this gear comes down, I really like the idea of video for replay instead. I hope someone out there is up for the challenge as I for one am not up for much after all the flack from this year.

George

Hi Maria

I have to agree with you re the changing of the ADAA contact judging rules it would seem silly to judge that a perfectly performed 2on 2off position may be faulted.

The ANKC rules however leave alot up to judges' interpretations; see below;

b) the dog misses the contact area of the Dog Walk either on the way up or on the way down. If both are missed it must be counted as two (2) mistakes.
d) the dog misses the contact area on the Scramble on the way down.
e) the dog leaves the plank of the Seesaw before it has touched the ground.
f) the dog misses the contact area of the Seesaw either on the way up or on the way down. If both are missed it must be counted as two (2) mistakes.

What exactly does 'missed contact' mean in this case? The way this is worded now if you called a 2on 2off because the dogs long stride took him over the area front paws landing on the ground and then back paws landing in the colour you would seem a particularly harsh judge (no one here has judged it like this that I know of). What does 'leaves the plank' mean in the seesaw case? Four paws off? three?, two? one? I've seen a seesaw here that was done and the dog slid into it, over slid, had three paws off it as he rode it down and tried really hard with his one paw left on it to push it back down when it bounced off the ground. He didn't move and kept that one paw determinedly on the plank. I truly would not call this as unless all four paws are off I don't believe it is a flyoff. The toughest calls for judges to make in the seesaw realm is when dogs slide into a 2on 2off position and don't hold it, simply break and virtually push down on the plank with real exertion to get it to hit the ground quicker and give them a quicker dismount. Those are damn hard to judge.

I take my hats off to our agility judges it is not an easy job by any stretch of the imagination.

Cheers

Simone

There are many situations where a judge probaly feels uncomfortable about making a decision in a split second . Did I see it correctly or at times they might be obstructed by the handler for example .

But aswell as a quick decision has to be made either way ( 50/50) I think a similar quick decision could be made as in a signal indicating "on hold for review". Be it that a second judge would do the review ( There are countrys that have 2 judges in the ring ! ) while the run is still going , a mark by the scribe or the tag ( instant possitioning of the footage at that particular moment) for the judge on the course to make a decision quickly at the end .

is the "on hold" a new idea ? defenatly not as there are other sports where that is applied but that dicision to hold has to be made at the moment of occurance (doubt).

I know of several judges that like to get a hold of footage of trials they judged so they can learn from it just as handlers do .

As seen in the pic, the judges view is obstructed ( can happen even after all the best planning) and has to decide on what can be seen  while there is information that is not visible to this judge. How comfortable is this ? Is there any judge that can claim they never ever had a uncomfortable moment ?
Oh and I know that there are judges around that claim they can see through panels but thats another discussion :)

 FYI: the dog was called on missing the contact while the footage clearly was able to show the right paw in the zone ( even if the setting of the cam was not intended for this ) and was also called for a flyer as the dog was already not in contact anymore with the zone while the board was still 2 inched above the ground ... EU judge-EU event ( who said that in Eu you get away with it ? )

This is not intended as critique to the decision even if this happened at a very major event
Just something that doesnt cost as much as George has found out to help judging

Guy

 

 

 

No way sensors are $60K. Sorry George, you're way off base. The sensors are very simple in design & concept. Are you're doing is having foot pressure complete a circuit. I made one for myself (also bought a Clean Run board), the cost is much cheaper though labor required. BTW, the same goes for that ridiculously priced $1600 wireless timing system. The added cost all comes from the fact that in order to build a viable business for such a low volume product, you have to charge that much. Very simple to have a wired system that emits a beep or chirp or buzzer when dog makes contact with the pad. The pad geometry can be less than 1/8" thick - and flexible to boot. Thinner is more expensive. All you have to do is get the organizqation to agree to add the pad to each contact zone. You can easily cover it with carpet or neoprene, as at last FCI. The problem you have to detect array of dog weights, but this is a very solvable design problem. Switch to a capacitive sensor and that solves that problem easily, though more costly. I think the criticism of Eric is unwarranted. No question a single-judge format has flaws, there were many, many missed calls at Nationals. But missed contacts go both ways - just part of the game. Simplest thing is to have dedicated line judges for each contact zone, as in tennis, which would improve accuracy. But we don't get paid millions of dollars based on line calls so this is probably a moot issue. Video replay logistically seems like it'd never happen. keeping trials moving seems of paramount importance to some. Audible contact calls are the simplest solution. One-time resonable equipment expense.

Dude...don't tell me I am wrong...Sorry Robert, I am not off base and yes this *is* the cost of a system to do this and this number was based on a *quote* from a real company that makes sensors and sensing equipment for Industrial and Medical Pressure Measurement. http://www.tekscan.com - Have fun and I hope they quote you a better price.

Just because you can make one does not mean that it is immune to vibrational noise and able to render to a PC an image map of the pressure and so forth like this system. Again, just because the materials and the concept are simple does not mean that the end product should be or be inexpensive. For example, the microprocessor is made from inexpensive materials and the logic gate is in essence quite simple, this does not mean that just anyone can make a microprocessor or that the price one must pay for one is not justified. Don't ever discount labor, the amount income from billable hours I have passed up to write the different software I mention in my earlier post is far well into the six figure range.

Anyway, following your corollary that thinner is more expensive, well you are right, These sensors are paper thin (~ 0.2 mm thick) and would be less intrusive than carpet or neoprene, so how does that calculate to the cost using your logic? :) If you can make a similar system and sell it for less than $60K, best of luck.

BTW the timing system I owned cost almost 10x times the 'ridiculous' one you mention, it was also of Olympic quality, you get what you pay for. Things like high-end optics, resolution in the 100s of thousandths of a second and a temperature compensated quartz crystal may sound like voodoo gibberish or overkill to most folks, but when a class takes all day to run in AZ and the temperature ranges from upper 50s in the morning with low light to mid 80s in the afternoon in the bright afternoon, I'd want the crystal and the system to yield the same results regardless of the ambient temperature and lighting. I think that type of overkill is a necessity, especially when so many people put so much time and effort in to this sport.

Yet another reason to abandon this concept...follow the principal that we make it as simple as possible but no simpler. Translation: use video...less wires, gadgets and money. The use of additional judges has been discussed in the past, but a video replay would minimize the number of people involved and could be done is such a way that it does not impede the progress of the finals. 

Somehow I doubt that these sensors are going to catch one toenail in the contact zone.  I judged a dog recently that literally had one toenail in the zone. I don't think a dog's toenail will register on any but the most sensative of equipment.

Pat

Thanks George!

I'm sure I will need the luck since I'll get on it & quote right away. Not thrilled about the hostile & rather condescending tone. Our company sells sensors & I design these for a living, so I think there is some legitimacy to my point....Dude. If you can't be civil in a rather harmless discussion of technology, then what's the point of posting?

The Tekscan sensors are probably overkill for dog agility. The performance requirements as outlined above can be met without that level of engineering. The reason for my post is that you seemed very conclusive in your assessment. Rather than quash all consideration from that solution, my experience tells me that if the business is there to support it, then these contact sensors can be designed and manufactured for a much more resonable price than you've outlined.

Pat - you bring up great point, and there's no easy solution. Ultimately, if you want to catch that toenail, yes you may end up paying the $60k George is talking about. The bulk of any system cost is always in capturing the most difficult problems. So if we're happy with a system that captures 99% of all good contacts, vs. 99.9999%, then that's going to be the distinction in cost. That is probably the disconnect between George & myself.

The easiest way to reconcile this discussion is to consider how accurate you want the result.  Assume for the sake of argument that the judge gets 85% of the cllas right.  Are we willing to pay a few thousand $ for a system that allows 99% accuracy? (and yes George that's a hypothetical #, no I don't have a product lined up ready to ship, OK?)  In order to get the accuracy I think George is envisioning, yes you could easily pay $60k. 

The simplest analogy is with products sold to the military.  We've all heard the crazy stories about the $30k toilets, etc.  Well, they're true, and with good reason.  The same component we sell commerically for a dollar costs the government several hundred dollars because we ship a stack fo documents verifying performance under all kinds of extreme conditions.  It really is a matter of degree.

So what is needed for dog agility, a recreational sport?  I guess that's enough because my wife is bugging me to get off the computer and get on with life. :)

 

follow the principal that we make it as simple as possible but no simpler

Good quote :-)

 I think it would be wonderful to have some back up system to verify a missed contact, or even better a contact that wasn't missed. I watched a dog this past weekend and he appeared to hit the down contact on the dog walk. I thought he did, his handler thought he did, and all the spectators that I heard comment thought he did. The judge called it and he NQed, other than that it was a clean run.

 If there was something set up like a video it would be wonderful to be able and go back and look to see if the dog touched it or not.