Page 14 - The Sample Voice 02-13

Basic HTML Version

ITEM 8.
INTERNATIONAL
AGILITY FESTIVAL
15. Mr Ray gave a verbal report on
arrangements for the Kennel Club
International Agility Festival to be held
at Kelmarsh Hall on 10-12 August
2012. It was noted that plans were
progressing well and following the
success of the layout in 2011, it would
remain the same for 2012. The format
of the classes would also be similar.
The question was raised as to whether
the International Agility Festival would
be using new equipment with rubber
contacts. The Council noted that the
schedule stated that contact points
would be the established type
-
wood
and sand, and accepted this to be the
case. It was noted that this matter
would be referred to the International
Agility Festival Working Party at its
October meeting.
ITEM 9. JUDGES
WORKING PARTY
(WTOA)
16. The Council noted a written report on
the progress of the Judges Working
Party. It was stated that a number of
matters were currently being
considered which required further
discussion and that that the Council
would be informed of its
recommendations in due course. It
was clarified that the item regarding
sub-standard judging procedure was a
complaints and objections matter
which was being dealt by the
Activities Sub-Committee.
ITEM 10. ANY OTHER
BUSINESS
Spread Jump for Small Height
17. A concern was raised that the distance
between the two poles of the spread
hurdle could not conform to Kennel
Club regulations since the majority of
current hurdle wings were not
manufactured with additional holes for
non-Kennel Club heights. The Council
welcomed a proposal to amend the
current regulation to be brought back
to its next meeting in January 2013.
Equipment to be Used in
Standard Classes
18. A suggestion was made to stipulate a
requirement for certain obstacles to
be mandatory in all standard classes.
The Council did not support this
suggestion as it felt judges should
have discretion to choose which
obstacles they wished to use. It was
noted that the regulations for the
Championship Class already stipulated
the required obstacles. The Council
took no further action, but urged
judges to include a greater variety of
obstacles in their course designs.
Addresses in Championship
Catalogues
19. The Council was requested to
consider a regulation not to include
Championship competitors
addresses
in catalogues unless a competitor
specifically requested its publication.
The current regulation required all
addresses to be included unless a
competitor specified an intention to
withhold the publication of their
address. The Council agreed that
addresses were no longer required as
there were various media platforms
that could be used to contact
competitors if necessary. Therefore,
the Council welcomed a proposal to
amend the current regulation to be
brought back to its next meeting.
Voting Online on Council
Matters
20. The question was asked whether it
was possible for agility competitors to
vote on certain Council matters online
as a means of reaching a wider
platform. The Council acknowledged
the rationale for this, but emphasised
that discussion on matters prior to
voting was an integral part of making a
decision that could affect the
development of the discipline. The
Council urged competitors to attend
area meetings or to send views to their
area representatives in order to be
involved in the decision making
process. It was agreed not to take the
matter further.
Assessment Feedback for
Potential First-Time
Championship Judges
21. The Council noted that once the
General Committee had made a
decision regarding a questionnaire for
a first time Championship Judge,
Committee policy did not permit the
office to provide the reasons for any
rejections. It was noted however, that
the Activities Sub-Committee and
Judges
Working Party had been
addressing this matter to establish a
method of relaying feedback. The aim
would be to relay positive and
negative feedback immediately after
the assessment prior to the
questionnaire being considered by the
Committee. Thereby allow feedback
to improve a judge
s knowledge and
performance prior to the final
consideration.
Distance between Weave
Poles
22. The Council was requested to
consider a five millimetre leeway to
the recently amended regulation
which stipulates the distance between
the weave poles. Concern was raised
that measurements may have been
taken incorrectly and, therefore, it was
clarified that measurement should
only be taken between the weave
poles which should be consistent
regardless of the base cup width. No
further action was taken.
Permitted Collars Under Test
23. Concerns were raised that some
judges had eliminated dogs which had
worn
bling
type collars when under
test. It was clarified that dogs should
not be eliminated if they wore such
collars if they appeared flat and,
therefore, conformed to the
regulations. A query was also raised
regarding an elimination of a dog for
wearing a buckled collar. It was
confirmed that so long as the collar
conformed to the description in the
regulations, the fastening may be of a
quick release or buckle type.
ITEM 11. DATE OF
NEXT MEETING
24. The date of the next meeting will be in
early January 2013 and will be
confirmed in September 2012.
ITEM 12. QUESTION
TIME PANEL
25. `The panel consisted of Mr S Croxford
-
General Committee and Activities
Sub-Committee member, Mr S Dean
-
Kennel Club Chairman, Mr S Ford
-
Activities Sub-Committee Chairman,
Mr B Lambert
-
Health and Breeder
14
THE AGILITY VOICE | JULY 2012