The 5" Proposal Passes! ...Now What?

NAFA Jump Height proposal results


The following is taken from the NAFA home page:

For the change: 93.54% Against the change: 6.46%
80.60% of the ballots were returned.
Beginning October 1st, 2008, we will be subtracting FIVE inches from the height at the withers instead of four.Read the announcement here.

NAFA's owners (the delegates) have made it clear that they want to subtract 5" from the shoulder to determine jump heights. This proposal was initiated by its participants and clearly was supported throughout the flyball community. What happens now that the proposal has passed?



Beginning Oct. 1st, 2008 we subtract 5" from the shoulders, of course!
So, why? do I even ask that question? I ask that because even though this passed by a landslide, there were legitimate concerns expressed about existing Height Cards early on in the process. These concerns do not magically disappear just because the decision has been made.

Height Cards

This is being written in advance of the August 2nd meeting of the NAFA Board of Directors. The latest information we have is that the NAFA BoD will be discussing at this meeting how this Rule change will impact the rest of the Rules of Racing. It is assumed by many that Height Cards will automaticly be issued reflecting the additional 1 inch deduction. On the surface, that may appear to be inevitable but, there are many critics of the Height Cards that were issued prior to the more restrictive standards adopted by the BoD starting in 2004 & 2005. Should these earlier Height Cards be "reviewed" prior to their re-issuance? Some think they should.

A proposal to review Height Cards before re-issuing them with the lower jump height will surely be met with some resistance. Some of the dogs who have these HCs haven't actually stood for a measurement in over 5 years. How dare anybody require these dogs to go through the measuring process one more time! However, the controversies surrounding these HCs could be put to final rest if their owners wish to take advantage of the additional 1" deduction.

When it comes to issuing Height Cards, the NAFA Board has the final authority. It generally has relied on the judgment of its approved Judges to exercise this authority, relying on at least one Supervising Judge to verify the accuracy of two other Approved Judges. At least three different Judges on three separate occasions must agree with their measurements in order for a HC to be issued. Unfortunately, it has been up to the competitors themselves to "police" the legitimacy and accuracy of these measurements by challenging an uncarded dog during a tournament OR filing a more formal challenge of a Height Card with the NAFA Board. To my knowledge, no one has availed themselves of the second option.

Does this "level" the playing field? Flyball is as much a social activity as it is a sporting competition. We are comprised of individuals that love our dogs and enjoy the sport of flyball. What team or club wants to be known as being so competitive that they challenged the honesty and integrity of a team they compete against regularly? It is difficult to challenge the integrity of a competitor when you also want to enjoy the company of those same people when the competition is done.

Wouldn't it be easier to follow the example of the British Flyball Association (BFA) which states in its rules that the BFA BoD retains the right to verify the measurement of any dog issued a height card on a random basis? The BFA BoD does not need to give a reason for re-measuring a dog. Since it is on a "random basis", all that the BFA needs to do is notify a Height Card owner to "present your dog."

Ultimately, all authority for "policing" and setting standards rests with the NAFA Board. Passage of the 5" jump height proposal presents the NAFA Board with a rare and unique opportunity to exercise their authority and level a playing field that has been perceived by many to be skewed for far too long.

That's my view, what's yours?

In the meantime, I wish you all,

"Good Luck and Good Racing!"

Proposed: Subtracting 5" vs 4"

I had hoped to have a guest in support of the the delegate ballot write an article discussing the reasons for delegates to vote in favor of passing this proposal. Alas, I have been unable to find anyone willing to write such an article. Oh, I can find plenty of people who support the concept. I just can't find anybody willing to write!

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!

Results From Survey: Success vs Winning

Thanks again to those of you who took the time to participate in the survey!

The results now include:
- A summary of the open-ended comments from question #2 : "Why does your club run a slow dog? "
- Additional summary information.

What does a slow dog run?

5.500 - 6.00 11.67% 7
6.001 - 7.000 40.00% 24
7.001 - 8.000 38.33% 23
8.001 - 9.000 6.67% 4
9.001 -10.000 3.33% 2
over 10.001 0.00% 0
Total 100% 60

You can access the full results page for Slow Dogs in Flyball here

Does your club run a slow dog?


Answer Graph % Votes
YES 98.55% 68
No 1.45% 1
Total 100% 69
Click here: Results and comments for a full recap.

In my opinion, the most interesting results include the reasons provided by respondents for running a "slow dog" on their club.....

Why does your club run a slow dog?

It is a Height Dog 14.29% 9
It helps our Multi-Breed
team with a fourth breed 3.17% 2
BOTH answers above 7.94% 5
Other - see comments 74.60% 47
Total 100% 63

Full results and comments can be accessed at: Why?

Thanks again to those of you who took the time to participate in the survey!



Good Luck & Good Racing!