So, I feel as though I should write something on this proposal even though I was not "in favor" when I first learned about it. I have since changed my mind and favor passage of this proposal because I have listened to both sides and concluded that passing this proposal would be beneficial to NAFA participants. I think it might be useful to others who have not made up their minds to describe my mental "journey" through both sides of this issue.
In The Beginning
I am a flyball "traditionalist". I was watching flyball before NAFA was even conceived -- when "flyball" itself was basicly a demonstration presented to crowds at horse shows for entertainment. I fell in love with flyball in these early, developmental stages and I am reluctant to accept changes that I feel "water down" the challenges of the sport that I am attracted to.
Flyball isn't easy. You need a "trainable" dog, for one thing. Not all dogs' "trainability" is equal. Some are very smart and catch on quickly. Some require persistance and patience before they understand the desired behavior. .....and some dogs, well. Some dogs were born to be "pretty" and maybe not so smart. (.....well, some humans are born that way , too but, I won't get into that.)
It is desirable to have an "athletic" dog as well. Just like humans, a dog's "athletism" is not equal both between different breeds and between individuals of the same breed. This is a "race". The outcome is unknown until the race is run and it is that "unknown" factor that is attractive. The winner is determined by "performance". Everyone understands the purpose (and outcome) of a race.
So, although flyball is "open" to anybody to participate in....it is NOT attractive to everybody. You have to love working with and training dogs. You have to be patient. You have to be able to work well with others as a "team". You should have a dog built well enough to physically run & jump repeatedly.
So, as much as I would like for everybody in the whole wide world to love flyball as much as I do....I know that is just NOT possible.
......so, what about adopting changes that may serve to attract more participants? It is a "fine" line that distinguishes between changes that attract more participation and benefit the sport vs changes that take away from the "challenges" of the current participant's enjoyment.
Any change at all should be carefully considered. That is why NAFA contains in it's By-Laws a provision that involves balloting the delegates before NAFA adopts rules that deeply impact everybody currently participating.
Flyball History
This is not the first time that NAFA has considered changing a standard that involved a parameter. Several years ago, (perhaps at least a decade or more) the "Start/Finish" Line was moved back 1'. The reason was more and more teams were adopting a "running pass" style. Instead of standing real close to the line, handlers were releasing their dogs from a greater distance in the runback area giving their dogs more distance to build up speed before entering the course. Having the Start/Finish line set at 5 feet was proving to be hazardous for both dogs meeting at the line. A proposal was presented at an open meeting (perhaps it was an AGM) to move the Start/Finish line back one foot to 6' from the first jump. That is why the flyball course is 51' long. Originally, it was 50' long until this course change was adopted for dog safety.
Much more recently, the Maximum and Minimum jump heights were voted and changed. The previous maximum jump height was 16" and was changed to 14". The minimum was changed from 8" to 7". Since we were still subtracting 4" at the shoulder across the board, the only dogs that these changes impacted were dogs that measured greater than 18" at the shoulder and dogs that measured less than 12" at the shoulder. Everybody else stayed the same.
Flyball Today
That brings us to the current debate concerning subtracting 5" vs 4". Flyball was created when it was mainly big dogs such as Labrador Retrievers who were doing the sport. The "Height Dog" was merely the smallest built dog of what was 4 "big dogs". Gradually, the Border Collie gained popularity for their intelligence and speed. The box design evolved from the fish can style catapult to an internalized catapult system to accomodate the BC speed and body type. Then, teams began using smaller and smaller "height dogs" and added smaller holes to accomodate the smaller balls for these dogs.
Flyball continued to evolve by placing the holes on the left or right side of the box to accomodate the "swimmer's turns" that were starting to be trained. Each of these innovations began with a handful of teams who used these strategies to successfully lower their times and win races. When the public saw these strategies as successful, many more teams adopted these strategies and flyball changed.
....but, what hasn't changed is the 4" rule even though most "height dogs" today are much smaller than what began in the sport 25+ years ago.
Today's Decision
The matter was presented to the NAFA BoD by a participant. I attended the meeting in which this letter was discussed. The individual Directors had varying opinions on this concept. The one thing they agreed upon was that the decision was not their's to make. Thus, the reason it has been presented to the delegates.
NAFA delegates have an obligation to consider both sides before casting their vote. Talking it over with teammates and other flyball clubs in their Region is their primary source of information. There is also some resources on the web which I would like to present here for easy access:
Article on The Flyball Blog: "Subtracting 5 Instead of 4". This is an excellent article capturing early reactions of participants. Pay attention to the comments section as it contains a wide variety of opinions both "for" and "against".
NAFA has sponsored a live "chat". The transcript can be accessed here. Also, elsewhere on this blog, "It's Just an Opinion", I have my first article; "Proposal to Subtract 5 From the Shoulder".
Final Thoughts
This is an important decision for the NAFA delegates. I urge you all who are voting to do your research and listen to all sides. My own opinion has been changed by one comment made to me by a friend after a lengthy discussion. That comment was that no matter how you felt about the rules of flyball one way or another, every consideration should be made to protect "....the safety of the dog." I couldn't agree more.
Good Luck and Good Racing!
Re-Posted by Permission
ReplyDeleteWell, I can give you an answer on this list. I tend to take a simple view of the jump height issue. I look at what we are really asking the dogs to jump. I run the numbers. Since we are not discussing lowering the minimum jump height, I do not care to discuss dogs under 11 inches as I feel that is irrelevant to this discussion. So, for dogs from 11 inches to 19 inches that are or may be used as height dogs. This is the breakdown of the heights they are jumping currently:
dog height at withers
jump height percent of height
7 7 100.00%
8 7 87.50%
9 7 77.78%
10 7 70.00%
11 7 63.64%
12 8 66.67%
13 9 69.23%
14 10 71.43%
15 11 73.33%
16 12 75.00%
17 13 76.47%
18 14 77.78%
19 14 73.68%
With the proposed change of making it 5 inches less rather than 4 inches less you get the following:
dog height at withers jump height percent of height
7 7 100.00%
8 7 87.50%
9 7 77.78%
10 7 70.00%
11 7 63.64%
12 7 58.33%
13 8 61.54%
14 9 64.29%
15 10 66.67%
16 11 68.75%
17 12 70.59%
18 13 72.22%
19 14 73.68%
I happen to like dogs not having to jump 75% or more of their height at any time. Therefore, I find the 5 inches off rather than 4 inches off a much more reasonable approach to take. My preference would be to top it off at 2/3s, but that is not part of this proposal. At least with the 5 inch off method, most of the dogs jump 2/3s or less of their height at the whithers and very few jump 3/4s or more than their height.
So I personally am very much in favor of the change. The primary objection I have heard is that it isn't fair to dogs 11 inches and under. Actually I find it quite fair to dogs until they get down to right at 9 inches and below as a dog right at 9 inches would jump 3/4s of its height. But, to address that is another issue and would involve lowering the minimum jump height again which isn't the buisness of this proposal.
Hazel L. Troendle, Derwood Maryland, USA (hltroendle@yahoo.com)
Hazel did the same thing I did when I first heard of the proposal. And I agree with her assessment.
ReplyDeleteLike I would agree a sagging bridge could use another brace.
Eli