PRESENT:

• Richard Jordan - Midlands

• Dave Ray - Midlands

• Ian Mallabar - North East

• Janet Nero - North East

• Pauline Baltes - North West

• Mike Hallam - North West

• Morag Kelly - Scotland

• Simon Chandler - South East & East Anglia

• John Gilbert - South East & East Anglia

• Tony Griffin - South & South West

• Lesley Olden - South & South West

• Mike Shaw - Wales

IN ATTENDANCE:

• Miss L Pogodzinski - Judges Working Party (Chairman)

• Debbie Deuchar - Team Leader – WTOA

• Joanna Nosalik - WTOA Specialist

ITEM 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

1.         Apologies had been received from Ronnie McAleese, representing Northern Ireland.

ITEM 2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

2.         The minutes of the meeting held on 14 January 2010 were signed by the Chairman as an accurate record.

ITEM 3. MATTERS ARISING

Results of Recommendations

3.         The Council noted the following matters which had been approved by the General Committee at its meeting on 20 April 2010:

1. Custom and Practice – Marking Regulations for Incorrect Style of Collar

2. Simon Chandler to sit on the Judges Working Party as a representative for the Agility Liaison Council

3.  Fun Agility Guidelines

Agility Control Test

4.         The Council noted that, due to a lack of support, this item would no longer be pursued.

            Nomination for Championship Judges

5.         The Council noted the General Committee's decision not to recommend a change to the current procedure. There was disappointment from some members, but it was reiterated that verbal feedback was still allowed.

            International Agility Teams

6.         The Council noted the report from the European Open Team Manager, Mr Graham Partridge, regarding the European Open selection day which took place on 18 April 2010. The feedback for the day was positive and members of the Council praised the judge, Mr Lee Windeatt, for his expertise and professionalism.

ITEM 4.             MATTERS ARISING FROM THE ACTIVITIES SUB-COMMITTEE

            Code of Conduct

7.         The Chairman thanked Simon Chandler for the first draft of the proposed Code of Conduct. A revised version of the document was distributed to the Council members to discuss, including one paper for detailed conduct at a show, and one paper for general handler conduct. It was felt that the words 'code of conduct'  implied it was a set of rules, but it was explained that it was a set of guidelines only.

8.         There was much support for the general handler code of conduct as it emphasised consideration and respect for others and their dogs. The Council agreed that the detailed code of conduct paper was not currently necessary, but incorporated some of the points it contained into the general handler code of conduct. Additionally, some bullet points were recommended for societies to use in their own show regulations.

9.         The Council also discussed the number of incidents at agility shows compared with those at other disciplines. It was suggested that agility dogs often had less obedience training prior to agility training which may explain why there are more incidents in agility than obedience. On this basis, the Council expressed the need for shows to report such incidents and urged competitors to follow suit.

10.       The Chairman reminded the Council that the general handler code of conduct would be discussed further at the meeting in January 2011, at which a recommendation would be made. In the meantime, it was recommended that the document should be renamed to 'Agility Code of Ethics.' (Annex A refers)

Number of Measurers

11.       The Council was requested to review the applications for measurers that had been sent to them prior to the meeting in response to the need for more measurers over a better geographic spread. It was noted that the response had been greater than expected, with applications coming from nearly every area.

12.       Each application was reviewed and those that gained support, were recommended for approval. Furthermore, it was stated that the additional measurers should be encouraged to hold more measuring sessions away from the show scene.

13.       It was further noted that a new fee of £4.00 per measure was recommended. Mike Shaw and Lesley Olden had received complaints regarding the suggested fee, but it was emphasised that the new measurers would be funding their own equipment, and this would help them recover the costs.

ITEM 11.           FIVE YEAR STRATEGY

            Kennel Club Society Registration

14.       The Council was invited to discuss the topics from the five year strategy. The main discussion centred on whether there was enough incentive for clubs/societies to become registered with the Kennel Club. The office explained that this matter had also been referred by the General Committee which wanted to improve the Kennel Club's offering to registered clubs/societies, including attracting and maintaining membership.

15.       It was noted that there were many private agility clubs with whom the Kennel Club had little or no communication. These included private enterprises that had the benefit of direct control over their businesses rather than being managed by a committee (which is a requirement of a registered club/society). It was suggested that smaller clubs may also not wish to be registered due to uncertainties of what would be expected of them. Many in the Council agreed that the main incentive to be registered with the Kennel Club was to obtain a show licence and enter a team for DFS Crufts. However, it was acknowledged that private clubs managed to work around this.

16.       It was suggested that there could be a two tier system of registering a club which would involve a registration similar to that of a listed status club, as well as full registration. Another idea was to liberalise some of the requirements clubs/societies needed to fulfil in order to remain registered. Some supported the concept that only persons belonging to a registered club/society may qualify for the DFS Crufts singles finals, but it was emphasised that it would be unwise to impose restrictions. As a result, it was agreed that further thought was required and therefore the matter would be discussed further in January 2011.

            Standard of Judging

17.       A discussion was held over the standard of judging, with some members of the Council expressing concern that it may have worsened since judges training was introduced. It was felt the decline was due to judges setting courses that often did not reflect the grade being judged. A suggestion was raised that first time judges could adhere to a minimum criteria for their first few appointments. Another idea included offering a mentor for a judge's first few appointments. Tony Griffin, also an accredited trainer, stated that the judges' training covered discussion about course design difficulty appropriate for a particular grade level. It was stressed that there could be clearer definitions for all judges to have access to in order to maintain a better distinction of difficulty between the grades.

            Championship Status

18.       It was noted that there were 21 Championship status clubs whereas there were 46 in obedience. The office stated that any club may apply for this status at any time, however, there seemed to be a lack of appeal for societies. Some members criticised some of the existing Championship shows that had poor ground, but the office said it would investigate any show should a complaint be received. It was suggested that the Kennel Club should investigate every new venue that holds Championship Classes.

            Combined Classes

19.       The Council briefly discussed the possibility of confining a combined class to only two grades. It was unanimously agreed that this would be too difficult to impose for Small and Medium classes, therefore no further action was taken.

            Grading Structure Review

20.       The Chairman requested three volunteers to undertake the review of the grading structure. John Gilbert, Pauline Baltes and Richard Jordan volunteered and suggested that the matter be included on the agenda for the next meeting in order to encourage competitors to contribute beforehand. The three members were recommended to form a working party prior to the June 2011 meeting to discuss the matter in more detail.

ITEM 6. PROPOSALS FROM SOCIETIES/PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS

Proposed deletion of Regulation H(1)(B)3.l (Pause Box)

21.       Tony Griffin, on behalf of Mr Tait, a private individual, proposed the deletion of the above obstacle since it was rarely, if ever, used in agility competitions. Mike Hallam seconded the proposal. A brief discussion took place over the validity of this obstacle, however, the majority remained in support of keeping the pause box.

Proposed deletion of Regulation H(1)(B)3.l (Table)

22.       Tony Griffin, on behalf of Mr Tait, a private individual, proposed the deletion of the above obstacle since it was rarely used in agility competitions. Ian Mallabar seconded the proposal. Again, the majority voted in favour of keeping the obstacle. The Council was reminded that the table could still be used in many ways other than timing a dog in a set position.

Proposed amendment to Regulation H(1)(B)3.j (Pipe Tunnel)

23.       Tony Griffin, on behalf of Mr Tait, a private individual, proposed an amendment to impose minimum length to the pipe tunnel when extended. Janet Nero seconded the proposal. The majority of area meetings struggled to understand where the tunnel would be measured, for example, when in a curve, whether the measurement should be taken along the outer or inner line. Furthermore, it was stated that there was no evidence to support this proposal's validity. The majority of the Council was not in support of this item and, therefore, no further action was recommended.

ITEM 7. INTERNATIONAL AGILITY FESTIVAL

24.       Dave Ray gave a verbal report on arrangements for the Kennel Club International Agility Festival to be held at Kelmarsh Hall on 13-15 August 2010. It was noted that the plans were progressing well, with many entries having been received as well as camping being near full. The Chairman asked the Council members to help where possible.

ITEM 8. JUDGES WORKING PARTY (WTOA)

25.       Simon Chandler gave a verbal report on the progress of the Judges Working Party which included discussion on judge's assessment feedback and the issue of re-runs. It was noted that nothing significant had been discussed since the last Council meeting.

ITEM 9. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

            Crufts Entry Fee

26.       The Council was requested to discuss the possibility of an entry fee being introduced to compete in an agility class at Crufts. It was noted that exhibitors in breed had to pay a fee to show a dog, but in agility, obedience and YKC competition classes, the competitors were not requested to pay. It was suggested that, should sponsorship lessen in the future, it may be a viable way of helping offset costs and would make it fair across all the disciplines.

Compulsory Help at Shows

27.       The office was requested to explain whether shows were allowed to enforce compulsory ring party help. It was stressed that show societies could not refuse entries on this basis. It was agreed that helping should not be a compulsory condition of entering a show.

Training on a Course

28.       There were concerns that some judges were allowing their partners or friends to practice pieces of equipment the night prior to a show. It was noted that this matter was covered in the Guide to Agility Judges Stewards which stated, 'To assist the judge it is permissible to run his/her own dog round the course.' It was suggested that some wording could be used in the judges' contracts to reflect this. However, show organisers holding a training night for themselves would be a separate matter. It was stated that the Council did not condone this activity and that the show organisers had the right to prevent such practice.

            Order of Judging

29.       A concern was raised that there had been a few incidents whereby the judge had altered the order of judging on the day. This had left many competitors confused and for those arriving later to the showground it meant missing a class. The office confirmed that only the show management may alter the order of judging in a ring and that should such a decision be taken, the competitors should be told in advance of the show.

            Running Order

30.       Another concern was raised regarding competitors with early running orders not being present until the end of a class. It was emphasised that this practice was not only a breach of regulations, but was poor sportsmanship. The Council wished to remind competitors that to ensure fairness, they must run their dog as near as possible to their running order, unless they had notified the calling steward that they would be late.

            Vet on Site

31.       A suggestion was made to have a vet or veterinary nurse present at all shows as a safety precaution. A discussion item would be included on the agenda for the next meeting in January 2011.

ITEM 10.           DATE OF NEXT MEETING

32.       The date of the next meeting will be in early January 2011 and will be confirmed in September 2010.

There being no further matters to discuss the meeting closed at 14:15pm.

Dave Ray (Chairman)

To contact Agilitynet click here for full contact details.
Please do get in touch - we love hearing from you, even if it's only to tell us that one of the pages has gone wrong!