NSW Agility Rules Review Meeting
The Dogs NSW Agility Committee will be holding an Agility Rules Review Meeting on Saturday 17th October at Erskine Park in the German Shepherd League Building from 4pm to 8pm.
This is the start of the 2010 Rules Review and the Committee has put the proposal together for next years ANKC National Agility Conference.
There will be only time to present written proposals that have been submitted to the committee for consideration.
The format in which the submissions MUST be is:-
- Rule number for change (State the OLD rule as written or the NEW rule number). (If you need a copy of the Agility and Games rules you get them from www.ankc.org.au)
- State the change of the rule (as you want to have the Rule).
- Write a RATIONALE to explain the reason for the change you want.
The committee already has a number of Agility Rule Review submissions that are for rules that did not require obstacle changes. This time we will accept proposals for OBSTACLE changes.
Submissions must be addressed to the Agility Committee Dogs NSW (with your membership number) and posted to:-
Dogs NSW Agility Committee
PO Box 632
St Marys NSW 1790
OR
email <info@dogsnsw.org.au>
Dogs NSW Agility Agility Committee
Current NSW Submissions for ANKC Agility Rules Review
The following submissions are the current NSW proposed rule changes which will need ratification by the National Agility Committee at the rules review meeting scheduled for early 2010.
AGILITY TRIAL RULE BOOK
Clause 3.0 “Agility Trials”
Agility Trials are open to dogs registered with the Canine Control of either sex and 18 months of age or over. The scheduling of an event or events and classes shall be subject to approval of the Canine Control. Events are Agility, Jumping, Games and any other activity that the ANKC determines. The following Games are approved: Snooker, Gamblers and Strategic Pairs. The introduction of Games is deferred until July 2006. Affiliates must schedule all classes in an event. All scheduled classes will be conducted with one round only. All references to Agility to include Jumping and other Events.
AMEND AS FOLLOWS :
DELETE THE WORDING: “The introduction of Games is deferred until July 1st. 2006.”
RATIONALE : Irrelevant now.
CHANGE THE WORDING: “Affiliates must schedule all classes in an Event” TO “The selection of classes to be scheduled at an agility trial is at the discretion of the affiliate conducting the trial.”
RATIONALE : With the growth in participation in the sport, and the increased interest in “separate height category” trials, affiliates need to be allowed flexibility when determining what events and classes they wish to schedule for their trials. Clubs combining with others to conduct trials on consecutive days, eg at weekends, need to be able to spread all the events and classes between them over the two days, not have to repeat the same classes because all classes in events are compulsory at every trial.
Clause 3.2.3 “The title of Agility Champion will be awarded to a ………………..”
AMEND THE OPENING SENTENCE TO READ : “The titles of Agility Champion and Agility Grand Champion will be awarded to a .............”.
AND ADD AN ADDITIONAL PARAGRAPH : “The title of Agility Champion will be awarded if any part of the above criteria is met by achievements in Master Classes that are conducted in separate height categories, and the title of Agility Grand Champion will be awarded when all parts of the above criteria are achieved when all height categories have competed together. The onus is on the owner to provide the Canine Control with evidence of results achieved retrospective to 1st July 2006.”
RATIONALE : At the last Agility Rules Review Conference the approval of the criteria for the achievement of an Agility Champion title was reached after the Committee had earlier disallowed trials to be conducted in separate height categories. The Committee later reviewed its decision on the separate height categories and reversed it. It inadvertently did not also re-visit and amend the criteria it had set for the Agility Champion title and this has allowed dogs competing in separate category trials to have theoretically five times the chance of achieving the necessary criteria to qualify for the title over dogs competing in trials where all dogs are competing together. This is an anomaly in the Rules which is not acceptable and was never the intention of the Committee. The proposed amendment addresses the situation.
ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL : That the height category of the dog be put in brackets after the title, eg Ag. Ch. (200), whilst any of the criteria has been achieved in Separate height Category trials. This is removed when all the criteria is achieved where all dogs have competed together.
Clause 4.1.2 “It is optional for Affiliates to schedule classes where all dog height categories compete together or, if advertised, separately in their respective height categories.”
ADD NEW SENTENCE : “Affiliates are encouraged to schedule classes for dogs to compete separately in their height categories”.
RATIONALE : With the expected expansion and growth of the sport of dog agility in the immediate future the ANKC should be looking to guide the development of the sport in the direction of providing fairer competition in the classes for all dogs. Affiliates should therefore be encouraged by the National Body to conduct trials where the judges are contracted to set specific courses appropriate to judge dogs of one or two particular height categories performing in a various number of classes/events, as opposed to the current “norm” where judges are contracted to judge a small number of events/classes and set a single course per event/class for dogs of all height categories to compete on against each other.
Clause 8.2 “If an unusual circumstance occurs which, in the opinion of the judge, disadvantages the dog, the judge may allow the dog to be re-run.”
ADD ADDITIONAL SENTENCE TO READ: “The re-run totally supersedes the original run and no aspect of the original run is to be retained.”
RATIONALE : A re-run is a re-run in its entirety and this avoids disagreements as to the complete validity of the second run.
Clause 8.11 “Withdrawal of Exhibits” “A dog may be withdrawn at any time before ……………………once they have entered the ring.”
ADD NEW SENTENCE : “The choice to withdraw from one class will not effect the dog and handler’s ability to compete in other classes at the trial."
RATIONALE : Once a competitor has paid the entry fee for a dog to run in a certain class, and it has been accepted, the dog is entitled to run in that class. If the competitor determines, for any reason at all, that he/she wishes to withdraw the dog from any particular class, he/she should, by advising the Assembly Steward accordingly, be allowed to withdraw the dog from that class without that withdrawal affecting the dog’s ability to run in any other class in the trial in which it has been entered.
Clause 9.16 “Disqualification”
ADD NEW SENTENCE : “In the event that a dog is disqualified under items a), b), c), or d) above, the handler and dog will be permitted to complete the course.”
RATIONALE : These faults are common course faults by a dog on any course. They are not disciplinary faults for unseemly or illegal behaviour and therefore common courtesy should prevail and the dog should be permitted to complete the course.
Clause 15 “Excellent Jumping Class”
AMEND HEADING TO READ : “16 – 20 Obstacles”
RATIONALE : Correcting the error.
Clause 18.0 “Distinguishing Features Of Open Agility And Open Jumping”
THE WORDING OF THIS CLAUSE AND SUB-CLAUSES TO BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS :
NEW OPENING SENTENCES : "The Open Agility and Open Jumping Classes are only to be conducted with all height categories competing together on the same course and with the same Standard Course Time. The Classes are not to be scheduled to be conducted in separate height categories.”
- The Open Class courses are to be designed to Excellent Class Standard and must contain a “Distance Handling Challenge.”
- The “Distance Handling Challenge” is a section of the course that requires the handler to handle the dog from beyond a “Distance Handling Line.”
- The “Distance Handling Line” is a line over which a handler must not cross during the “Distance Handling Challenge.”
- The “Distance handling Line” is to be approx. 5 metres from the furthest point of the “Challenge.”
- NEW CLAUSE A dog will be disqualified if its handler steps on or over the “Distance Handling Line.” (NOTE: Add to D/Q Clause 9.16)
- NEW CLAUSE The number of obstacles to be used in the “Distance Handling Challenge” is to be 3 to 5.
- The obstacles to be used in the “Distance Handling Challenge” may be selected from Flexible or Collapsible Tunnels, Single Hurdle/s, Spread Hurdle, Scramble, and Broad Jump.
RATIONALE : Clarifies and reflects the Agility Committee’s intention for this Class.
Clause 4.2 “After the 1st. July 2006, prior to a dog………………………… is valid for the life of the dog.”
DELETE THE WORDS “After the 1st. July 2006”.
RATIONALE : Irrelevant now.
Clause 6.8 TABLE “The top of the table is to be 1000 mm square with a non-slip surface. It is to be adjustable for each height category and should be anchored.”
DELETE THE WORDS : “for each height category and should be anchored”.
REPLACE WITH THE WORDS : “to 200 mm high for the 200 and 300 height categories, and to 400 mm high for the 400, 500 and 600 height categories.”
RATIONALE : The only function of the Table is to test a dog’s stability on a platform off the ground. The dog’s jumping ability is not at test so the platform does not have to move to every height category’s jumping height.
GAMES RULE BOOK
GAMBLERS
Clause 4.1.2 DELETE “GAMBLE PERIOD (sec)” column from the chart.
ADD NEW CLAUSE : 4.1.3 The Gamble Period is to be determined by the judge after measuring the length of the Gamble and applying a rate of travel appropriate to the class and the obstacles being used in the Gamble.
RATIONALE : All judges understand the concept of using a rate of travel figure to establish a SCT for Agility and Jumping classes, but, in Gamblers many are designing the “Gamble” far too long, and with too many obstacles, for dogs to successfully achieve it within the times set by the chart in the Rule Book, particularly in the Master Class. If judges were required to measure the length of the “Gamble” that they’ve set, and then divide that by a rate that is appropriate for the class and the types of obstacles that they’ve used in the Gamble, the Gamble Time (Period) would be more realistic for every course.
Clause 4.2 Gamble Faults
ADD NEW SUB-CLAUSE : 4.2.2.6 “Having commenced the Gamble, the dog also negotiates any obstacle that is not a designated obstacle of the Gamble."
RATIONALE : Clarification is necessary that once a dog has commenced the Gamble sequence it must only do the Gamble obstacles. If any other obstacles are also negotiated it will be scored as “no Gamble.”
Clause 4.2.2.5 Gamble Faults ”The handler steps on or over the Gamble line.”
ADD EXTRA WORDS TO THE END OF THIS SENTENCE SO IT READS : “The handler steps on or over the Gamble line/s after the signal has been sounded for the completion of the Point Accumulation Period."
RATIONALE : Rule 1.5 dictates that, after the signal has been given for the end of the Point Accumulation Period, the handler is required to remain behind the Gamble line. Some competitors interpret this to mean that they only have to stay behind the line once they have started to put their dogs through the Gamble obstacles. Also some Gambles are set down the centre of the ring effectively dividing the ring into two halves. The amendment re-affirms that handlers, finding themselves on the “bad” side of the ring, can not run across the Gamble area to start doing the Gamble from the preferred side after the signal has been given.
Clause 5 General Rules
ADD NEW CLAUSE : 5.5 A handler, finding him/herself in the Gamble area when the signal for the end of the Point Accumulation Period is sounded, will not be faulted, and should immediately move out of the area to commence the Gamble.
RATIONALE : Self explanatory.
STRATEGIC PAIRS
DELETE: clause 7.2 “The judge may specify that an obstacle can be taken in either direction so long as it is taken in the designated sequence.”
REPLACE WITH NEW CLAUSE: 7.2 The judge will specify the direction in which the obstacles must be negotiated. If an obstacle, when it becomes the next active in sequence, is first negotiated by a dog in the wrong direction, the dog will be faulted.
RATIONALE : Strategic Pairs courses are legitimate agility courses, albeit somewhat disjointed, and as such all the obstacles, when they become the next active in sequence, should be negotiated in the direction indicated by the positioning of the obstacle number. A dog first negotiating the obstacle in the wrong direction must be faulted for wrong course and the dogs must exchange.
THE FOLLOWING MOTION IS ALSO PUT TO THE ANKC AGILITY COMMITTEE FOR ITS DELIBERATION AND DETERMINATION :
MOTION : ( “ATTACHMENT A” to accompany this Motion)
That the attached “ANKC NATIONAL AGILITY TEAM EVENT RULES” be adopted by all States and Territories, and that any alterations to these Rules must first be discussed and agreed upon by the ANKC Agility Committee in conference (electronic or otherwise).
RATIONALE : It is to the advantage of both the competitors in, and the organisers of, the National Agility Trials, that the rules of the National Team Event are standardised. With constant changes to the Rules happening at each National Trial, held in a different State, difficulties in understanding, and avoidable mistakes, can and do occur.
The attached Rules for the Team Event have been prepared from the rules that were used for the 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 Nationals. Comments received from State Delegates following a Draft Document that was circulated at the end of last year have also been incorporated.
