On April 1, 2008 came the deadline for the TDAA continuing education judges’ exam. The test consists of a written part, mostly multiple choice, and a practical part in which the judge had to design a suite of standard courses for three levels, and two games nested off the standard.

The written part was fairly straight-forward, though time consuming. I arranged all of the tests with current page up and flipped through them simply comparing answers and making marks as warranted. The written part actually exposed flaws in the instrument of the test. For example, the correct answer might not have been one of the choices. But enough of the judges took the initiative to crib in the correct answer that anyone who did not… gets a mark off.

The funny thing about cribbed notes, I found myself accepting what might have been a wrong circled answer, when the cribbed explanation showed correct thinking. One should, however, avoid mitigation and rationalization in cribbed notes. Even if the circled response was correct, if the cribbed explanation demonstrated incorrect thinking, I had to mark off.

Doing a critical review of 60 some games was an incredible task. You see, in the TDAA we can play any game imaginable (or, for lack of great imagination there’s always the Clean Run Book of Agility Games.) Those venues that have only two or three well tested games are shirkers, compared to us. My task was to determine if all the elements of game design are in place, mindful that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.

These were my criteria:

Were the written rules and course map sufficient to allow nearly any competitor a grasp and the ability to devise a strategy before walking into the ring for briefing?

2. Was the scoring basis clearly defined? This is certainly a matter for the score-keeping table. Just so you know, a standard class is typically “faults then time,” Gamblers would be “Points then Time,” and another obscure game might be Points – Faults + Bonus, and then Time.

3. Grading standard courses is a bit more straight-forward. Did the designer use the required obstacles and the required number of obstacles? Were the courses well-nested? Were the challenges adequate and appropriate for each level? I also looked at the presentation of the course in terms of balance and distribution.

I worked through the tests paying little attention to whose test I was grading. But after the dust settled I went back through and tallied the results. Inasmuch as the exercise had been intended as a vehicle for continuing education and certification of judges… saving all from being compelled to attend an expensive judging clinic, it had been our intention to ask the judge to redo / retry if any points were lost on the written test.

Since there were no perfect scores on the test I decided to forego that punishment (and the loss of two more days of my life.) So I sent them all back their test results and asked them to document the games they’d chosen for the test and submit these to our webmaster Don Wolfe to forever grace our “Sample Courses” page (www.k9tdaa.com). These will provide documentation and guidance to future judges.

It’s funny how people react to being tested. Sometimes there’s a bit of ego there. Several judges wrote to ask clarification of this thing or that. A couple wrote to argue, mitigate and rationalize every single error I found in their work.

I truly was not in the mood for argument and have not found suitable cause to reverse a single testing decision. In any case I’m not mental on the topic. Everyone passé; though there’s a couple out there that I advised to “get thee to a judging clinic.”

Now I’m sitting here contemplating precisely what I should do with the smattering that have come in the mail after the deadline for tests!

Shoes

A few weeks ago I did a seminar in a small facility that featured as a flooring of 1/4″ rubber on concrete. I came away from the weekend nearly crippled. I had on a brand new pair of Nike tennis shoes and I’m just afraid they were unable to keep my feet safe and supported. When I got home I threw these into the back of the closet and wore my Wolverines tightly bound for several days to support and heal my feet.

Prior to leaving for Chicago we took a foray down into town where I found a show vendor who sells New Balance. The New Balance style I used to buy (off the internet no less) has been discontinued. So I’ve tried another. And so far, I’m quite happy with the support they’re giving my poor feet.

Nike is off the map for me. It’s a good philosophy when you do work that requires a lot of time on your feet that the shoes you wear don’t actually cripple you. Once of the worse experiences I ever had with bad shoes were from a pair of Dr. Scholls I bought once. They were abominable beasts. It makes me wonder what Scholls is a Dr. of. I reckon it’s something like Philosophy, or more likely Marketing and Advertising.

It’s nice to have on a nice pair of white shoes.

Rock ‘n Roll

This is a course that Rick Dorrington passed on to me some time ago… something he ran into in competition that is clearly challenging and a bit different from the usual fare we might see in the world. The author of the course (judge / course designer) is lost to me; otherwise I would happily credit the work.

What makes this course very interesting from a handling point of view is the roller coaster ride of changes of direction. For the most part none of the changes of direction are herky jerky kinds of things that shut the dog down; and, for the most part the judge has declined to add the cruel twist of options or traps, being content with the simple riddle: Can the handler turn his dog.

Overall the course is a bit of a 2:1 count. That means the dog does two obstacles in a line then is turned to a single jump and then turn again… to repeat this Rock ‘n Roll beat several times over.

The quandary many handlers will have on such a course will be in solving the fast-dog/slow-dog handling puzzle. Most handlers will be inclined to handle this with a lazy low-energy fast dog approach (behind the dog and pushing); while the winning strategy is more likely a slow-dog, forward of the dog and pulling.

Note too that the opening affords the opportunity for a lateral-lines lead-out (very unusual in our culture) which gives the handler an advantage in real estate lateral to the dog and position to stay forward and pulling in the tough turn from jump #3 to #4.