I agree, a solution needs to be found to end this kind of "baiting" and move NAFA forward. In todays world of "wicket vs leg bone", serious discussion is absent when people feel attacked before they are given the opportunity to comment. ....but, a serious discussion needs to take place if we are ever going to live in peace playing flyball and growing our sport.
The wicket method of measuring a dog from the withers to the ground is simply the way dogs have been measured for centuries. Since the majority of flyball competitors come from many other dog sports who also use the wicket or some form of measuring the dog's height from the withers, defending the "fairness" of the method seems silly. Certainly, it becomes "counterproductive" in terms of what's right for flyball or NAFA. It is not whether the wicket "unfairly" penalizes dogs with long backs and short legs. Given the variety of solutions suggested in the comments section of "Deep Chest Penalty", the question that should be asked is, "How do we work together to come up with a method of determining jump heights that is 'fair' to every dog, every team in every division, everywhere?"
Some members of the NAFA Board have asked DVMs and other dog professionals about measuring a dog's jumping ability utilizing just one leg bone. They could not get a recommendation that was "in favor" of just measuring a leg bone. Listening to the details of this inquiry, I wondered how the NAFA Board could recommend changing their method of measuring to the delegates if they could not get a recommendation from Veterinarians?
More and more, I think the solution just may be a radical departure from the "status quo". I don't believe that keeping the wicket is in NAFA's best interest. I also don't believe that measuring the leg bone will resolve these issues either. Debating "which" method is better is also leading us further down the "measuring" rabbit hole.
What if we did away with measuring entirely? What if we nullified the section that says a team shall set the jump heights to 4" below the shoulder height of the shortest dog? What if we instituted a "declare your jump height" rule instead?
Radical Solution
Let's face it, 4" below the shoulder is an arbitrary figure. It's "traditional" for NAFA but, NAFA has been in operation for only 24 years. Who set the jump heights before NAFA?
There is a proposal right now that will be decided by the delegates to increase that subtraction to 5". That may help some dogs but, not every dog. And, it doesn't resolve any of the issues people have with measuring since the proposal is not about measuring....only how we apply the results of measuring.
I can hear the 'gasps' now. Do away with measuring? Do away with 'height dogs'? How can this be a serious proposal?
I thought the same things when I first heard this idea discussed at a NAFA Board meeting in Detroit over three years ago.
It was the usual scenario that brought up the debate over measuring. During the discussion, one BoD member suggested that we stop measuring and have teams "declare" their jump heights. Of course, a lively debate ensued. After it was over, I asked this BoD member privately if he was truly 'serious' about "declaring" your jump height? Indeed, he was.
".....but, wouldn't that mean everybody would just jump the minimum jump heights?" I asked.
He didn't believe so and then asked me, "Would you? Given the opportunity to declare your jump height, would you choose to always jump the minimum?"
I answered "no".
"Why not?"
".....well, because my dogs run better (faster) at around 10" jump heights." I said.
"There you go!"
Internal Debate
That conversation took place nearly three years ago. The BoD member I was talking to was no "rabble-rouser" trying to stir things up. He was a respected long time Supervising Judge who had settled many measuring disputes in troubled Regions. He were familiar with the problems. The problems are human-centered. It's not the wicket itself. It is the various viewpoints surrounding it's proper use. NAFA can't get people to agree on interpretation of NAFA's Rules and Policies concerning measuring, or even agree on how to "resolve" the disagreements. Perhaps it is time to consider doing away with measuring entirely and turn to a different "focus" to challenge us in this sport.
- Instead of a "height dog" to determine jump heights, a team must declare their jump height prior to racing. They must jump this height throughout the event.
- NAFA would now track the "World Records" at all the different jump heights that would be possible in a Class. For example: The WR for 7" in Regular would be tracked separately from the WR for 8" and the WR for 9", etc.
- All other Rules would remain the same.
What would happen to all the little dogs in flyball? Would they go away?
Under this proposed scenario, I don't think so. There are so many athletic, trainable small breeds that are suitable for flyball, I don't see this as causing them to "disappear". What will happen is that a team will be able to compete with any size dog(s) in any combination.
What will happen is that our focus will shift away from pure athleticism and will include intelligence and trainability.That is what we should be rewarding, isn't it? Isn't that what the fabled Herb Wagoner was demonstrating when the sport of flyball was invented? That dogs could be trained to work together as a team with each other as well as a human handler?
What about the "divisions"? Would we have to separate the 7" Division from the 8" Division, etc?
No, not the way I propose. Of course, discussions in the comments section may lead down a different path but, the Divisions are decided by seed time based on the team as a whole. Although the jump heights do affect speed, they will not "change" after you declare. In other words, if you find yourself running too fast, you will not be allowed to raise your jump heights in order to slow your team down and avoid breaking out. That decision would have to be made before racing.
Conclusions
I expect this idea to meet with some resistance. Historically, discussions have centered around the measuring method track. I expect some people to have difficulty giving up "measuring". But, to resolve the measuring issues, you have to think "outside the box." Until the discussion begins, we can't hope to change anything.
One thing I would really like to change is the practice of "baiting" the opposition. I want to invite people to feel "safe" to leave comments here without fear those comments will be used to ridicule or belittle an opinion. The idea I have presented here is just "an idea". A starting point for discussion. Who knows what somebody else may see in this idea that can possibly be used to end the conflict over "measuring". I'm hopeful. I really am.
Good Luck and Good Racing!
