JMO  

-Katie

Hi Katie,

I agree!  I too use an opposite hand signal.  I prefer this to relying solely on a shoulder drop as I think it is easier for the dog to read. 

I'm obviously not doing a good job of explaining this though.  While Susan in competition will obviously use all of the cues (verbal, opposite arm, deceleration, etc.) that she can to help her dog out, it is my understanding that in order to proof her dog's understanding of a serpentine for training purposes if she is layering a jump, she would expect her dogs to automatically (without a verbal) see the jump between them and take it.

My point re the miscue at the tire is that although there is no serpentine in the sequence because there is a jump between them for a brief second as Encore comes out of the tunnel, Susan would have trained Encore to see the jump between them and opt to take that jump based solely on Susan's position.   Susan, from what I understand, tries to avoid layering whenever possible as it leads to this type of confusion.  If you watch really carefully, Encore is responding (in my opinion) not to a miscue from Susan but to the fact that for a split second that jump is inbetween the two of them.  I think the idea behind this training is that Susan does not want to have to stop her forward motion in order to have the dog commit to the middle jump (or obstacle) of a serpentine.

Clear as mud?

Wendy

Hiya Wendy,

Personally, I do think it's the dog's responsibility to recognize serpentine body position and handling if that's what the dog's been taught to do. If I'm in the serpentine position, which is a cue in itself, then I would expect my dog to come in like it's a serpentine.

Crissy

In the opening sequence of the Bay Team Steeplechase Second Round, I am curious why one might choose to serpentine 3-4-5 rather than leadout into a front cross or call to side 3-4 followed by a front cross 4-5.

http://agilityvision.com/course-map-steeplechase-rd-2-bay-team-2006

I understand that in certain systems, any sequence where there could be a front cross on either side of an obstacle might be called a serpentine [noun].  But it's not clear to me that every serpentine [noun] should be serpentined [verb].

In many such cases, it strikes me that serpentining [verb] requires the handler to travel much farther than what would be required to perform the two consecutive front crosses.

Begin Course Designer
Version 3
For a free viewer, go to www.coursedesigner.com/viewer
AAFreJxjZuRRkLmgwAAFjEAAJJiYGbgYGJkYGJiZGVPkdZesc+nn+TiL4WvHdC9m
nvlcjPIsjEAFDyVSZSOYdMC89/9P/z/xDcZb9r/+x5mfMB4nw/qfUmwIuZN/ZH+B
eSGMDG0Mub85vnOwVzDIFzEyXPlfzzP1H88WBgb5KJBzzD8c+P0B6CpWRhaG/bzX
hKz+Vv/f89vhvzHj5p8sUDUSP1Z+gahhZlgDVHP3n+a/6b89fzEzyO8DyW8WshNh
ZDCUhfACGd5/ZWQwgvIWf3/zi5HBGMrL//b3PyODCZQnwjrjOyODqax8AIgnxF0p
mMIg38TA8Od/8pe3P2UZGCDcwP/nfk/4KcsE5S5iaPj3668sAxOEK8vA94+NFaIY
ABj1Z8Q=
End Course Designer

In these cases, it seems like the extra distance the handler must travel can put considerable timing pressure on the handler.  The handler's movement rushing to make up the extra distance running around the obstacle often seems to end up cueing the dog to the incorrect direction.

Did anyone actually handle that sequence like a serpentine?  From watching the videos on www.agilityvideoservice.com most people did a lead out pivot or handled with the dog on their right and pulled them around 4.

To play devil's advocate 3-4-5 wouldn't be considered a serpentine even using 'certain systems'.  According to the 'certain system' a serpentine is where you have 2 front crosses in a row.  However, also according this 'certain system' 3-4 is NOT a place where you should front cross since it's a straight line for the dog.  2-3, where the dog turns, is where the front cross should go.  Using this logic 3-4-5 is not a serpentine. 

Did anyone actually handle that sequence like a serpentine?  From watching the videos on www.agilityvideoservice.com most people did a lead out pivot or handled with the dog on their right and pulled them around 4.

Susan and Encore attempted to serpentine [verb] the sequence.

http://agilityvideoservice.com/play_x264video.php?dog=encore&video=06-09-04-encore-stf.mp4

According to the 'certain system' a serpentine is where you have 2 front crosses in a row.  However, also according this 'certain system' 3-4 is NOT a place where you should front cross since it's a straight line for the dog.  2-3, where the dog turns, is where the front cross should go.  Using this logic 3-4-5 is not a serpentine.

Regarding whether the sequence was a serpentine [noun], I'll let Susan or other followers of the system provide a more authoritative reply. 

As I understand the system, 3-4 would NOT be considered a straight line for the dog.  In this case, due to the approach from 2, the dog would land 3 and still need to turn left in order to get to 4.

I think you are looking at the two jumps, 3 and 4, and seeing a straight line.  However, you can draw a straight line between ANY two obstacles.  For example, you said that 2-3 was a left turn.  Why?  After all, there is also a potential straight line path between 2 and 3.  However, that path is unrealistic because of the approach from 1; the dog would land 2 and still need to turn left in order to get to 3.  Likewise, 3-4 is also a left turn given the approach from 2 and the resulting landing of 3.

My original question.

Before this particular definition gained such wide acceptance, the term serpentine [noun] used to refer more specifically to a set of jumps lined up side to side to side.  The dog's path would snake back and forth from one jump to the next.

Lots of people had developed the skill of handling such a sequence without needing to perform the two possible crosses in the middle.  Such a skill makes sense because it allows the handler to take a shorter path, and it potentially allows the handler to use their motion/position to cue the dog earlier as to where it is going.

It has probably served us well to broaden our notion of serpentines [noun] to include different obstacles and to include arrangements that diverge somewhat from the straight line.

However, I do wonder about the usefulness of broadening this definition quite so far.  As I understand it, this notion of serpentine [noun] extends to just about ANY situation in which there are two consecutive turns of differing direction.  In other words, any case in which the dog must turn left to get from obstacle X to obstacle Y and then turn right from obstacle Y to obstacle Z, or vice versa.

I wouldn't really care all that much about what things are called.  However, I do notice that we are creatures of habit and reinforcement.  To say it more succinctly, if we happen to find we are pretty good using a hammer, we tend to see more and more things as nails.

So we broaden the notion of serpentine [noun], and now we have people attempting to serpentine [verb] sequences in which the handler must take ever LONGER and LESS EFFICIENT PATHS; running longer paths AROUND THE OUTSIDE of jumps rather than shorter paths down the center of the zigzaging flow of the course.  Pushed to extremes, it seems like this would understandably start leading to miscues.

I've attended a couple of camps with Greg Derrett between a year and a half to two and a half years ago. Among other things, he set up a number of potential serpentines. Some, when handled as a serpentine, improved handler path and dog line. Some, if handled as a serpentine, would do the opposite. His approach was pretty simple. If handling as a serpentine would improve the run, then do it. If not, don't do it.

We also asked him about layering. At the time, his response was that he'd prefer to sacrifice time occasionally by running around an obstacle in order to maintain the trained "serpentine" behaviour in the dog, than to sometimes layer an obstacle and break down the behaviour.

The handler path for serpentine should ideally be shorter than the 2 front-crosses. I attach a Course Designer example. Here the handler needs to be able to send the dog ahead around the 180 from 1) to 2) as they move to pick up the dog on the landing side of 3). How much they need to manage the 180 depends on the dog-handler speed ratio and their distance skills. The most efficient line for the handler (as illustrated) is far shorter than the 2 front-cross solution (about 50% distance), so there is still plenty of time to manage the 180 turn more than is illustrated here.  The other advantage for the handler is that they don't have to rotate their body 360 degrees two times, in quick succession, in order to get from 1) to 4). The dog must clearly read the handlers serpentine cue (shoulder/arm rotation into dog) so that the dog does not continue along the vector the handler is moving, but rather jumps into them across 3) and then continues along the vector of movement to 4). I should have changed the rotation of the handler in the 3rd and 4th handler position to reflect this.

This figure also shows how if you do a lot of layering then doing this serpentine might cause you problems. The dog will read more your vector of movement rather than jump into you over 3). 

Ashley.

Begin Course Designer
Version 3
For a free viewer, go to www.coursedesigner.com/viewer
AAD6eJxjZuQ7IHRAiAEKGIEASDAzM3ABOQwMzMyMKfLcK7VcH3ybv5rha8djHmY+
oDJ5FkYGLYbvzHJyzDJMH8DcKAZN7momGG/Z/7f/2TgQcrk/Nv4F86JAtrT+8Pu4
BWgNCxMjg6ksDwMf/wWBp4wh//oZFvxd/b/x75e/Av93/41mKPqnzlT0T41p9984
hv1/df4//Xf674//Xr+BTmMGIyagU/aBTOziPMLNyGAoC+FJMBd+ZWQwgvJqfkhy
MDIYQ3nbftz8xshgIisPAHAtRTA=
End Course Designer

whoops I forgot to copy the version with the handler path. Here it is:

Ash.

Begin Course Designer
Version 3
For a free viewer, go to www.coursedesigner.com/viewer
AAFNeJxjZuQ7IHRAiAEKGIEASDAzM3ABOQwMzMyMKfLcK7VcH3ybv5rha8djHmY+
oDJ5PqAcgyV7D2/gl6/v3nL8YwOpZZBnYWTQYmj4P/+/DNMHMC+KQZO7mgnGW/b/
7X82DoRc7o+Nf8G8KAaGWQy3xZl4tgAtZ2FiZDCV5WHY8V7m21PGkH/9DAv+rv7f
+PfLX4H/u/9GMxT9U2cq+qfGtPtvHMP+vzr/n/47/ffHf6/fQAczgxET0IH7QL7p
4jzCzchgKAvhSTAXfmVkMILyan5IcjAyGEN5237c/MbIYCIr38TAwM3QyXGJR5aR
MYUBxD32f8tfObl/cL4rw7m/cQiuAMP3v1lQLgBhMl9s
End Course Designer