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!
You have written a good argument fairly well.
ReplyDeleteI am curious as to "some members" talked to "some DVM's". Listing the source would lend more credence to your point. I do agree with your point, but am frustrated at not finding more reliable information, myself.
This is very much along the line of my comment at Larry's blog, "...5 instead of 4.."
My instinct tells me that very few teams would actually run in faster brackets than they do now under this philosophy. Except those large teams that would no longer be running slower height dogs in order to keep the hurdles low. Again, no good source of info on this - the NAFA database is not "open" to this type of research.
As to current hurdle height - 4" is arbitrary, as is 5", or whatever. The course is what it is; just as authorities of human sports do not change the playing field based on a specific player, flyball rules do not change the course based on a specific dog.
Except the hurdle height. And I can not help but believe that it was an arbitrary measurement that made sense at the time, based on what the participants had experienced to that point in the world of flyball.
What I have not seen raised is this: 4" is 1/3 the height of an 11"-12" dog. The 11"-12" dog then enjoys the biggest advantage, as the hurdle is lower for it than for any other dog - comparing height at the withers to hurdle height (2/3). 6"-10" dogs at 7" are jumping 117%-70% their own height and 14"-20" dogs jumping 12" are jumping 70%-75% their own height.
At the 5" reduction, the 11"-14" dog is jumping less than 2/3 its own height at the withers. 6"-10" dogs at 7" are jumping 117%-70% their own height and 17"-20" dogs jumping 12" are jumping 70%-75% their own height. A 5" reduction would be a help to many teams. A sliding rule could be implemented in the name of fairness, but is hampered by the wicket issues.
None of this quiets those who have had their dogs measured by as much as a two inch difference. This needs to be addressed, if for no other reason than to establish some credence to the method. The root of the evil lies in the number of joints that can be at varying angles at the moment of measuring decision using the wicket method. The possible variance is greater than the intended degree of accuracy (1"). There is no getting around this.
In proposing a "competitor selected" hurdle height, the field suddenly is flat. No matter how fast your team is, everyone understands that there is a fundamental difference between the WR at 8" as opposed to the WR at 12", or 14". And their is no argument over tournament victories, as the team chooses their own hurdle height. Because they lose to a team running lower hurdles is no reason to be disgruntled. Because the hurdle height is one element of the course as it relates to the dogs' and the teams' performance, and all other elements remain the same (ie length of course), each conformation of dog brings with it its own advantages and disadvantages. In the end, training, conditioning, and teamwork make the difference.
This would not unduly "advantage" teams, either. Racing brackets today are made up based on seed times, and regional "points" toward championships are won based on the fastest team in the region with the most tournament win points. And in NAFA, this is the D1 team with the most tournament wins in the region. This would not have to be changed. D4 teams would not magically become D1 teams. If NAFA were to want to go to divisional recognition, it would become sticky quickly. Is that a D2 championship at 8"? Or is there a divisional champion for every possible hurdle height?
". Except those large teams that would no longer be running slower height dogs in order to keep the hurdles low. Again, no good source of info on this - the NAFA database is not "open" to this type of research."
ReplyDeleteThank you, eli.
Fast or slow, Height Dogs would become obselete as described since jump heights would no longer be determined by the height of the dog.
As to "fast or slow" dogs, my own team has included 8-9 seconds running dogs in our lineup. These were slow big dogs so no HD advantage. The challenge for these slow dogs was getting enough speed dogs around them to consistently run under 24 seconds and make 25 point runs.
There are two divergent team goals playing out there. It seems the really fast D1 clubs are running for the Regional Championships. The rest of us are running for points on our dogs for titles. Changing to declaring the jump heights would not change the goals of a "pts for titles" team.
BUT, you do bring up an interesting point about Championships at dofferent jump heights. Perhaps, this is an avenue to open up Championships to more teams. Go for the 12" jump height Championship in your Region. Nobody else wants to jump that height so the field could be wide open. Might make seeking out BIG dogs to jump higher would become desirable.
Also, don't forget that D1 could have all "out of Region" teams thus putting awarding Regional points to the D2 bracket. It has happened several times. Or, a mixture of awarding 3 Regional points to a D1 team and the 2nd and third place points for Regions drop down into D2.
Its hard to predict what would happen since nobody has thought to speak publicly on the idea.
I'm sorry, I won't list the source since it was spoken "off the record" at a BoD meeting I was a guest. I did hear it with my own ears. To me, it just underscores the need for people to choose to be more involved by attending NAFA BoD meetings when it is practical.
.........Chris
"Fast or slow, Height Dogs would become obselete as described since jump heights would no longer be determined by the height of the dog.
ReplyDeleteAs to "fast or slow" dogs, my own team has included 8-9 seconds running dogs in our lineup. These were slow big dogs so no HD advantage. The challenge for these slow dogs was getting enough speed dogs around them to consistently run under 24 seconds and make 25 point runs."
Exactly.
With a club philosophy that "every body gets to play", you strategize to ensure each team in the club has a fair shot at earning points. You end up spreading the speed out over multiple teams. This is true no matter what height the dog is. Many dogs run 6 sec or more whether the hurdles are 6" or 12". Again, you strategize by "helping" this dog with faster team mates.
If the hurdle height falls out of the picture, you still end up setting up your teams based on collective times that can still earn 25 points. Doing so without respect to HD's lets you rotate more dogs, the lone HD in the club does not get entered on more teams (Regular, Multi, or Open) on the basis of height, and in some cases, allows more dogs to run on the team. (Rotate 6 dogs instead of 4 or 5).
Rotating 6 dogs would help small clubs with more than 4 dogs, but less than 8-10. New clubs starting out with a high density of "green" dogs and one or no HD face the additional challenge of racing green dogs over higher hurdles than their seasoned, HD advantaged competitors.
"Competitor selected" hurdle height in no way discourages small dogs from competing. My philosophy is you recruit the people and race with the dogs they have. (Paraphrasing Randall). Many people check out flyball and get hooked on it because they are looking for something they can do with their active companion dog. This desire is not based on the dogs' size.
And let us not forget that hurdle height is not the only aspect of the course that limits speed. I did a double take recently watching the Rude Dogs run their Mals. They (the Malinois) actually _decellerated_ entering the gate as they shortened their stride to 10'.
I would like to throw out the comment that "getting rid of the slow height dog" has absolutely nothing to do with jump heights. On quite a few teams that I have personally watched or raced on, the height dog or dogs were either the fastest dog on the team, or one of the fastest; and this included D1 teams. In addition, I've seen both big and little dogs run 8-10 seconds whether they were on a team jumping 8", 10" or 12". I have also seen some "big" dogs who run faster over higher heights because they can push harder and not overstride the 10' between jumps.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting concept and I hope a lot of good conversation comes from it being thrown out to the public.
Finally, unfortunately in any political, competitive climate, anyone listing specific names of "experts" only draws criticism and throwing around of "better experts" by those with a different opinion. I feel that discussing the issues at hand, rather than trying to make sure one "expert" is better than another "expert" will gain us much in the long run.