What's being discussed at Clarges Street
 The Kennel Club
Liaison Council Agility Council meets regularly to discuss various rule changes and current hot
topics. The agenda is sent out before each meeting to all clubs which we will reprint here. If
you are interested in the direction your sport is going, these documents are essential reading.
Think about the issues, discuss them with your friends and club mates and then don't forget to
let your area rep know your views.
Agenda
This
is the agenda for the meeting of The Kennel Club Agility Liaison Council to be held on 11 July
2007 at 10am at Clarges Street, Piccadilly, London W1.
ITEM 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
ITEM 2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
To
approve the minutes of the meeting held on 14 February 2007 (Copies previously distributed).
ITEM 3. MATTERS ARISING/RESULTS OF RECOMMENDATIONS
a. Kennel Club International Agility Festival
Dave Ray will give a
verbal progress report on the work of the Kennel Club International Agility Festival.
b.
International Agility Competition
The Council will be informed of the progress made in relation to sending a team to an
additional international agility competition.
c.
Graham Partridge & Tony Griffin
Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1)10.e
FROM:
Food shall not be carried in the hand or given to a dog in the ring.
TO:
Except with the express permission
of the Judge nothing shall be carried in the hand and food shall not be given to a dog whilst
in the ring.
(Amendment highlighted in yellow)
Graham
Partridge has re-submitted his proposal as he believes it covers all eventualities by saying
“nothing shall be carried in the hand” but also gives the judge discretion to make the odd
exception where it is deemed necessary.
Judges
should be given some credit to act responsibly, as the majority have done in the past, and if
necessary an advice or guidance note could be inserted in the Kennel Club Guide for Agility
Judges and Stewards.
d.
Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1)(B).3.h. - Ian Mallabar
FROM:
Wishing Well or Lych Gate
- Wishing Well or Lych Gate – This obstacle will have a roof of which the bottom will be not
less than 1.524m (5ft) from the ground. It will have a displaceable top bar the height of
which will be between 550mm (1ft 9.6ins) and 650mm (2ft 1.6ins). The minimum width should be
813mm (2ft 8ins)
TO:
Wishing Well
– This obstacle will be of stable construction and will be able to be fixed to the ground.
To ensure the safety of the dog, it will have no sharp edges. Should
a design be utilised which involves a removable centre section then the resultant corners must
be rounded or padded. It will have a roof of which the bottom will be no less
than 1500mm Large Dogs – 1220mm Medium Dogs – 950mm Small Dogs from the ground. The roof must
not project beyond the width or depth of the base. It will have a displaceable top bar the
height of which will be between 550mm & 650mm Large Dogs, 350mm & 450mm Medium Dogs, 250mm &
350mm Small Dogs.
The minimum space from the
top of the bar to the top of the base will be 200mm or 150mm if the bar height is 250mm.
The minimum width of the
top bar will be 800mm.
The overall width of the
base will be between 1200mm & 1400mm. The depth of the base which the dog jumps will be a
maximum of 500mm Large Dogs, 350mm Medium Dogs, 250mm Small Dogs.
This proposal has been put
forward to update the specification of the wishing well for large dogs and to give a
specification for small and medium dogs. It has been attempted on various occasions, with the
most recent prototype, being on display at the Kennel Club International Agility Festival.
The comments on the
displayed model included concerns that:
-
It was a generally bulky
design.
-
The depth was too great
(equal to full spread).
-
When adjusted for small
and medium dogs it looked unrealistic.
-
When centre sections were
removed this left sharp corners.
-
The design made it
necessary to purchase all three sizes.
This proposal, whilst not
outlawing the above prototype, answers many of the questions raised. It allows for a variety of
designs including a 'Russian Doll' approach and the ability to build for one category of dog,
if required.
ITEM 4. PROPOSALS FROM SOCIETIES/PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS
a.
Worcester Agility Society - Dave Ray
Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1)(B).3.k
FROM:
Weaving Poles
– The minimum number of poles should be five and the maximum number 12. They should be a
minimum of 457mm (1ft 6ins) and a maximum of 609mm (2ft) apart between the poles. The poles
must be of rigid construction and with a minimum height of 762mm (2ft 6ins) and a diameter of
between 19mm (¾in) and 38mm (1½ ins)
TO:
Weaving Poles –
The minimum number of poles should be five and the maximum number 12. They should be a minimum
of 500mm (1ft 7.55ins)
and a maximum of 600mm (1ft 11.6in)
apart between the poles. The poles must be of rigid construction and with a minimum height of
762mm (2ft 6ins) and a diameter of between 19mm (¾ in) and 38mm (1½ ins).
Where weave bases are held down with pegs, the pegs
should be placed over the centre strip and tucked away against the pole sockets.
(Amendment highlighted in yellow)
Range
of distance between the poles
This
proposal has been put forward as Worcester Agility Society believes there is a need to narrow
down the range of the permissible gap between poles and proposes that the distance should be
from just under 20 inches to just under 24 inches, rather than 18 inches to 24 inches. Dogs
are now weaving much faster and with a more set rhythm and stride pattern than would have
been the case, when the existing regulations were written. Most manufacturers weaves are set
at approximately 20 inches. Where a fast weaving dog encounters a set of weaves with a much
smaller distance between poles, its stride pattern may cause it to start hitting the poles
with its shoulders, with the possibility of injury.
Pegging down of weaves
This amendment has been put forward as it is felt that when weaves are pegged, there is no
consistency as to where the pegs are placed. Often they are placed across the centre strip,
but sometimes are placed over or through the ends of the stabilizer bars. Worcester Agility
Society has had two of its members’ dogs injured on their rear toes and pads, due to treading
on the ends of the bars. Repeated hammering of pegs can cause the tops/edges of them to
become very sharp. For the safety of dogs, Worcester Agility Society believes that pegging
should be limited to the centre strip and that pegs should be tucked away against the pole
sockets.
b. Worcester
Agility Society - Dave Ray
Proposed Amendment to Regulation H.18.a.
FROM:
Organisers of Agility Shows and/or Flyball Competitions must ensure that those
invited to judge are competent to fulfil their engagement taking into account the nature of
the competition.
TO:
Organisers of Agility Shows and/or Flyball Competitions must ensure that those invited to judge
are competent to fulfil their engagement taking into account the nature of the competition.
Minimum age of judges at date of judging to be 16 years old.(Amendment
highlighted in yellow)
This proposal has been put
forward as it is felt there should be a minimum age for judges, given the level of
concentration and consistency required to judge up to 450 dogs in a day. Junior competitors had
been seen judging where they had been unable to give their full attention, including failing to
observe competitors once they had been eliminated. It is also a concern as to how a junior
judge would handle a competitor who impugned their decision, or put pressure on them to change
a decision or to change their course.
Worcester Agility Society
appreciates the need to encourage new judges into the sport, however it feels it would be more
appropriate for junior competitors to gain judging experience under less formal conditions, for
example club competition nights or fun days.
c. Proposed
Amendment to Regulation H(1)(B).3.a Mr I Mallabar
FROM:
Hurdle
–
Large dogs – to be between 550mm (1ft 9.6ins) and 650mm (2ft
1.6ins). Medium dogs – to be between 350mm (1ft 1.75ins) and Small dogs – to be between 250mm
(9.8ins) and 350mm (1ft 1.75ins). Width: 1.219m (4ft) minimum. The top bar or plank must be
easily displaced by the dog. A wall should have displaceable units on top.
TO:
Hurdle – Large dogs – to be between 550mm (1ft 9.6ins) and
650mm (2ft 1.6ins). Medium dogs – to be between 350mm (1ft 1.75ins) and Small dogs – to be
between 250mm (9.8ins) and 350mm (1ft 1.75ins). Width: 1.219m (4ft) minimum 1.524m (5ft)
maximum.
Weight: 1Kg minimum
1.5Kg maximum.
The top bar or plank must be easily displaced by the dog. A wall should have displaceable
units on top.
(Amendment highlighted in yellow)
This proposal has been put
forward to limit the variation in weight of poles currently in use. A proposal was recently put
forward which specified the material to be used in the construction of the pole. Although there
appears to have been support for the reasoning behind that proposal, limiting the material to
wood alone did not gain support as many felt the weight of wood to be inconsistent (i.e. balsa
wood vs. oak or dry wood vs soaked). There were also concerns expressed over the resultant
sharp splinters if a wooden pole were to break.
It was believed that
regulating the weight of a pole rather that the material used would remove the objections
whilst still answering the problems raised in the original proposal i.e.
-
Varying results when
touched by dogs.
-
Lighter poles blow off in
high wind causing re-runs.
-
Lighter poles travel
further when knocked resulting in possible injury.
d. Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1).9.f -
Tony Griffin
FROM:
Where
classes are split, they must be split into parts of equal numbers (to within one dog).
Splits must be conducted on a random basis. Competitors entered therein must be notified of
all changes.
TO:
Where
combined
classes are split, they must be split into parts of equal numbers (to within one
dog). Splits must be conducted on a random basis.
Where graded classes are
split, they must be split by grade. If a subsequent grade or single grade class is split,
they must be split into parts of equal numbers (to within one dog). Splits must be conducted
on a random basis.
Competitors entered therein must be notified of all changes.
(Amendment highlighted in yellow)
e. Recommendations from the Dog Agility
Measuring Working Party
Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1)(B)4.(2)
FROM:
Large dogs entered for competition must be measured before they compete at their first
agility show, if they have not competed prior to 1 January 2006. Dogs must be a minimum of 15
months old before the first official measurement takes place. (Dogs incapable of being measured
at the time they are presented to the measuring officials will not be eligible for competition
until such time that the official measurement has been successfully carried out.)
TO:
Large dogs entered for competition must be
measured before they compete at their first agility show, if they have not competed prior to 1
January 2006. Dogs must be a minimum of 15 months old before the first official measurement
takes place. Dogs that are, in the official
measurers' opinion, obviously over 430mm
prior to reaching 15 months of age can be measured.
(Dogs incapable of being measured at the time they are presented to the measuring officials
will not be eligible for competition until such time that the official measurement has been
successfully carried out.) (Amendment
highlighted in yellow)
f.
Proposed Amendment to Regulation H(1)(B)4.(3)
FROM:
A second and final official measurement
must be carried out on the dog between 12 and 24 months after the first. (Delete highlighted
words)
TO:
A second
measurement must be carried out on the dog between 12 and 24 months after the first
unless the
dog is obviously over 430mm, in which case the official measurers can strike out the second
measurement in the Agility Record Book. The dog cannot be reclassified into the lower height
category retrospectively if the second measurement is not taken up within the 24 month period.
If the second measurement places the dog in the same height category as the first, this will be
the final measurement. However, if the measurement places the dog in a different category then
a third measurement must be carried out within two calendar months by two measurers, both of
which must not have measured the dog on a previous occasion. The dog’s height category will be
that confirmed by two out of the three measurements. The dog should compete in the original
height category until the final decision has been made.
(Amendment highlighted in yellow)
g. Proposed Amendment to Regulation
H(1)(B)4.(10)
FROM:
Dogs
presented for measurement should be wearing a collar and must be under the control of the
owner/handler. Dogs presented for measurement that cannot be controlled by the owner/handler
will not be measured.
TO:
Dogs
presented for measurement should be wearing a collar and must be under the control of the
owner/handler. Dogs presented for measurement that cannot be controlled by the owner/handler
will not be measured.
Where a dog is known to have a microchip or ear tattoo
this form of identification should take precedence over a photograph and should be used to
confirm the identity of the dog. If this is not available, a clear identifiable photograph may
be used. (Amendment highlighted in yellow)
h. Proposed Amendment to Regulation
H(1)(B)4.(13)
FROM:
In the event of a dispute over the measuring procedure the Kennel
Club will evaluate whether there are grounds for appeal. The owner/handler of the dog may
appeal in writing to the Kennel Club, but must do so within 90 days of the disputed measure
having taken place. Any appeal must be accompanied by a written statement from the
owner/handler of the dog with a brief description as to the ground for the appeal and must be
accompanied by the appropriate fee.
TO:
In the event of a dispute over the measuring procedure the Kennel
Club will evaluate whether there are grounds for appeal. The owner/handler of the dog may
appeal in writing to the Kennel Club, but must do so within
30 days of the disputed measure having
taken place. Any appeal must be accompanied by a written statement from the owner/handler of
the dog with a brief description as to the ground for the appeal and must be accompanied by the
appropriate fee. (Amendment highlighted in
yellow))
Procedural Recommendations
-
The Measuring Working
Party suggests that the compulsory, third measurement is free of charge.
-
It
is suggested that the third measurement is only compulsory for dogs measured after 1 January
2008. However, any dog that has changed height category should have the option of a third
measurement, but this must be undertaken before 1 May 2008. Two different measurers would
still be required but the standard fee would be payable.
-
Any measurer that
measured a dog into a different height category should inform the office, so that it could be
confirmed that the dog had been measured a third time. It was confirmed that anybody that
did not have their dog measured a third time would be contacted and reminded of the
regulations. If the third measurement was not obtained the matter could be referred to the
WTOA Sub-Committee.
-
The working party
recommends that spot checks be undertaken by societies on a random basis. It is suggested
that 10 books for each height category could be requested at a show. If anyone could not
produce their record book, the dog’s details should be included in the incident book and the
matter referred to the Kennel Club. The dog must still be allowed to compete in the entered
classes. It was also recommended that any show which held a Kennel Club or Crufts qualifying
competition should be required to undertake spot checks.
-
Any Society which
invited measurers to attend, whether at a show or a specific measuring session, should ensure
the necessary facilities were available. A table must be available for all sessions, most
agility equipment hirers would be able to provide one for a show.
ITEM 5. DISCUSSION ITEMS
a.
The Kennel Club Olympia ABC Agility Stakes - Lesley Olden
Lesley
Olden, on behalf of Bill Glover, has requested the Council to discuss the current rules for the
Kennel Club Olympia ABC Agility Stakes. The current rule states:
'The
competition is open to all dogs excluding Border Collies, Working Sheepdogs and their crosses.
(Any Breed but Collies). In the event of dispute, the judge’s decision will be final.'
Bill
Glover explains that all judges who judge at Kennel Club licensed shows agree as part of their
judging contract to abide by the Kennel Club Guide for Agility Judges and Stewards, which
states:
'5.7.5
The eligibility of dogs entered in any class is not the concern of the judge or steward. Any
queries should be referred to the Show Secretary/Management.'
Bill
Glover requests the Council
to consider amending the rules for the Kennel Club Olympia ABC Agility Stakes to be consistent
with the Kennel Club Guide for Agility Judges and Stewards.
b. Show
Managers - John Gilbert
John
Gilbert, on behalf of Suffolk Five Rivers Agility Club, has requested the Council to discuss
whether a Show Manager should be able to run their dogs at an Agility Show. Suffolk Five
Rivers Agility Club understands that the Show Manager’s role can be a demanding task, however
they believe the majority of the Show Manager’s work is completed prior to the show and, if
the tasks are delegated appropriately, then there would be sufficient time for the Show
Manager to compete in 3 classes per day.
The undermanager is allowed
to run their dogs, even though their job is just as important. Suffolk Five Rivers Agility Club
strongly believes that any dog owned by the Show Manager should be eligible to compete, and
should not be excluded. As agility shows are run by people who enjoy the sport, it is felt that
they should not be penalised for taking on the role of a Show Manager, as this job is becoming
increasing difficult to fill. Show Managers do not have sole access to course plans prior to
the event, so therefore could not practice in advance.
c. Score Tent -
Tony Griffin
Tony
Griffin has requested the Council to discuss whether a competitor is allowed access to the
score tent to check their results. Tony Griffin accepts that while the results are written
up, it is permissible for the scorer to request ‘peace and quiet’ but believes that when the
class is in progress the competitors should be allowed to see where they stand in the class
and whether the results are correct, as mistakes do happen and can be more easily rectified
immediately. This could mean the difference between starting on a long journey home or
staying for the presentation.
d. Agility
Warm Up - Mike Shaw
Mike
Shaw, on behalf of Daniel Rees has requested the Council to discuss the need for a warm-up
area. Mr Rees attended the Kennel Club Canine Sports Science Seminar which made him realise
the importance of warming-up himself and his dog before running a course.
Mr Rees requests the
Council to consider setting up a Working Party to investigate what could be done to help
competitors prepare their dogs correctly. The changes which Mr Rees believes would help are:
-
Minimising queue lengths
and introducing suggested spacing.
-
Rather than queuing, competitors could book in with a
caller, then use a designated warm-up area nearby, and then run when called rather than
standing in line. This works very well in some Championship classes.
-
A practice jump could be
provided as seen at UKA Shows, to encourage warm-ups.
e. Grading
Structure for 1 and 2 - Dave Ray
The
office has requested the Council discuss the wording for the eligibility of the Grade 1 and 2
classes. The current wording suggests a new handler in grade 1 is not eligible to handle a
dog in grade 2. The Regulations could also be read that one handler, with three different
dogs could progress out of grade 1 or 2. The office requests the Council to consider if this
was the intention.
ITEM 6. JUDGES WORKING PARTY (WTOA)
Tony
Griffin will give a verbal report on the work of the Judges Working Party.
a. Proposed
Amendment to Hurdle Refusal in the Judges Guide to Agility Equipment
FROM:
Refusal if the dog runs under the bar, jumps the wing, or runs past
the line of the wings or if the dog stops, or turns away when in a position to jump the hurdle.
TO:
It is usual to give a
refusal if the dog runs under the bar, jumps the wing, or runs past the line of the wings of if
the dog stops, or turns away when in a position to jump the hurdle. It may be that on occasions
it is possible for the dog to run past the line of the wings in the normal course of its run,
in such cases it is not usual to award a refusal. IN ALL CASES YOU MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH YOUR
DECISIONS.
ITEM 7. QUESTION TIME PANEL AT 3.00PM
Ronnie Irving, Bill
Hardaway, Stan Ford, Steve Croxford, Caroline Kisko and Kathryn Symns. All questions on any
Kennel Club matters should be forwarded to your area Agility Liaison Council Representative.
ITEM 8. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The
date of the next meeting will be confirmed in September 2007.
ITEM 9. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
| 
.jpg)
To
contact Agilitynet 