Ankc Obedience Rules

[poodlefan]

I am confused- how would it be a challenge? If the judge requests you down your dog and the dog doesn't down, isn't that easy? Regardless of what the cue was?

What if someone has english words that were all fruit names- the judge still wouldn't know what the cues meant but it wouldn't matter.

So if the judge days down your dog, and I stand him by mistake (it does happen), how does the judge score that - the dog hasn't failed to respond as cued.

Or if I call the dog's name constantly and (which I could do using other language cues) how is that scored. Using the fruit example, the dog could be cued as Teddycarrot, Teddyapple, Teddyorgange and the judge wouldn't be any the wiser.

Edited January 21, 2011 by poodlefan

[Staranais]

Are ANY english language words allowed as cues, or only certain commands? i.e., could I use "strut" or "prance" or "follow" or "banana" for a heel cue, as all are in English? If so, it seems silly to allow all these commands and not "au pied" or "fuss".

Anyway, I've voted yes, I think other languages should be allowed, in every dog sport. Making you have to use certain cues is a disadvantage to newbies to the sport (who may have trained their dog partially before learning that there are allowable and non-allowable obedience commands), also makes it much more work for people to crosstrain in other discplines that require other commands (e.g. German).

Out of interest, is English the only official language in Aussie? Just asking as in NZ we have 3 official languages (English, Maori, NZ Sign), so here I think they'd have a hard time saying you couldn't use Maori in the ring.

[RubyStar]

I'm a newbie, but why would using a two word command give someone an advantage?

Are ANY english language words allowed as cues, or only certain commands? i.e., could I use "strut" or "prance" or "follow" or "banana" for a heel cue, as all are in English? If so, it seems silly to allow all these commands and not "au pied" or "fuss".

All commands must be one syllable long. Short and sharp. I guess having it longer could be construed as an extended signal?

If the command in another language is still only one syllable, I have no issue with it. But I still voted no because I think the rules are fine the way they are - if someone wants to use another language they can just ask permission from the judge and at the same time explain what the commands will be

[wuffles]

So if the judge days down your dog, and I stand him by mistake (it does happen), how does the judge score that - the dog hasn't failed to respond as cued.

Just out of interest, how would this be scored usually? I've never really thought about it

[poodlefan]

So if the judge days down your dog, and I stand him by mistake (it does happen), how does the judge score that - the dog hasn't failed to respond as cued.

Just out of interest, how would this be scored usually? I've never really thought about it

The time I can remember doing it, the judge started me again and asked for the correct cue. I don't think I got a deduction which seems fair enough because the dog hadn't stuffed up. I'll ask my judge friend though.

It can be a tad challenging sometimes to hear the judge's cues on a windy day.

[Seita]

So if the judge days down your dog, and I stand him by mistake (it does happen), how does the judge score that - the dog hasn't failed to respond as cued.

Just out of interest, how would this be scored usually? I've never really thought about it :D

The time I can remember doing it, the judge started me again and asked for the correct cue. I don't think I got a deduction which seems fair enough because the dog hadn't stuffed up. I'll ask my judge friend though.

It can be a tad challenging sometimes to hear the judge's cues on a windy day.

Depends on the judge but generally you've stuffed it. For example I once asked a judge how he would score me if I accidentally sent my dog to the wrong glove and she did what I asked... I would still have failed that exercise as dog did not retrieve glove that the judge requested.

Oh, and about the talk about one syllable I'm not sure it's actually in the rules that commands have to be one syllable, most people in UD use OVER for directed jumping that's 2 syllables.

[RubyStar]

Oh, and about the talk about one syllable I'm not sure it's actually in the rules that commands have to be one syllable, most people in UD use OVER for directed jumping that's 2 syllables.

Good point. I was going through the usual commands in my head and couldn't come up with a 2 syllabe one

Stand, Down, Drop, Sit (yes this used! COP), Fetch, Give, Heel, Come, Box, Find.... oooh just thought of another 2 syllable one, some people use "Finish" for dogs to return to heel I think. Not sure if that is allowed?

[Nekhbet]

thats why I dont do ANKC obedience My dogs are trained in 3 languages and I can teach them what I want (oh and dont have to teach stay command either WOOT)

makes command refusal wonderfully easy

[Dxenion]

If the competition rules state that the commands can only be given in English, could that be considered as discrimination on the grounds of race (language and it's relation to the person's ethnicity)?

Extract from the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s9.html):

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 9

Racial discrimination to be unlawful

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

(1A) Where:

(a) a person requires another person to comply with a term, condition or requirement which is not reasonable having regard to the circumstances of the case; and

(b) the other person does not or cannot comply with the term, condition or requirement; and

© the requirement to comply has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, by persons of the same race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin as the other person, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life;

A quick chat with the WA Equal Opportunities Commission highlighted that if a person could not reasonably comply with the requirement to issue commands in English as it is not their native language, they could possibly have a case. A point to consider is if commands in another language are allowed and it is not a language the judge is familiar with, would the judge have a case based on the fact that the use of non-english commands prevents them from being able to fairly judge the use of the commands as they apply to the rules of the competition.

Something to consider in our multi cultural country.

Edited to include that the Disability Discrimination Act may come into effect here too as you cannot discriminate on the basis of the person's disability. One example I can think of is for competitors who are hearing impaired (the person, not the dog) and use sign langage to communicate with their dog. I don't think it would be reasonable to expect a hearing impaired person to have to try and speak english commands (if they are unable to) just for the sake of the competition. Other than how the command is given, if a person can train their dog for competition and meet all of the other requirements, that rule would prevent them from being able to enter. Then again, the same situation arises for any judge not familar with sign language - how can they reasonably expected to judge the use of commands in sign language as they apply to the rules of the competition?

Edited January 21, 2011 by Dxenion

[J...]

if someone wants to use another language they can just ask permission from the judge and at the same time explain what the commands will be

I think one of the issues is the potential sh*tfight when the judge refuses.

Most judges allow it as far as I know, but I know at least one who would refuse the request, no matter what your reason :D

[RallyValley]

I wonder why when we could be having a constructive topic about encouraging more people into obedience or why competitors should steward and judge we are having such a negative nitpicking topic. That makes obedience look bad to people who don't understand the sport and the rest of the rules and why we would have a rule in place such as this.

To the original poster, care to clarify why you started this thread? Was it because you train in another language and wanted to know if judges approve of it? Although the thread was about changing the rules, obedience recently had a rules reviw, did you put forward your idea then?

And before anyone accuses me of being racist or insensitive many members of my family weren't born here and several don't speak english.

EFS

Edited January 21, 2011 by RallyValley

[Staranais]

But, perhaps changing rules that people find irritating or obstructive would encourge more people into the sport?

[PAX]

I'm pretty sure in Schutzhund the commands must be given in German even in Oz, rules are rules. It is only a cue to the dog, I cant see why it would be a problem.

[PAX]

If we all got to change the rules we didn't like, the list would be endless, I could name many rules I would like to see changed.

[RallyValley]

If we all got to change the rules we didn't like, the list would be endless, I could name many rules I would like to see changed.

We do get a chance when we have rules reviews, which we have just had for obedience.

[PAX]

Yes for sure and I was there, were you?

Edited January 21, 2011 by PAX

[RallyValley]

Yes for sure and I was there, were you?

No I am really new to obedience and only read about it online, and also came into things after the suggestions stage. But maybe the OP is in a similar position and did not know that they can change things when the next lot of rule changes come around.

[PAX]

It is not so easy just to want to change things.

Each State gets votes on rule changes, WA and TAS get one vote, the other states get two votes (is what I believe by numbers of members).

Each State has a representative, that puts forward what that state wants in the rule changes.

All these ideas are bought forward and decided, it's a long process.

[Echo]

To the original poster, care to clarify why you started this thread? Was it because you train in another language and wanted to know if judges approve of it? Although the thread was about changing the rules, obedience recently had a rules reviw, did you put forward your idea then?

EFS

I started this thread because (as I said in my original post) I can see no valid reason that this rule is in place.

Just makes no sense to me, that English should be stipulated for Obedience trials only, when there is no such stipulation for any other ANKC discipline.

I do not train my dogs in another langauge, so I have no ulterior motive for wanting to see this rule dropped.

It irks me to see rules put in place, that are there for no apparent reason, especially when they may disadvantage some people.

In the Obedience ring, the judge only has to score the performance.

This can still be done exactly the same, no matter what language the handler is using.

Provided (as I said earlier) that commands are restricted to a single word (as per existing rules).

There have been a couple of posters saying that commands must be of one syllable only.

I would appreciate it if someone could tell me where to find this in the rules.

I did not put this forward to be changed at the recent rule review, but am thinking that I will be doing so at the next one.

Unless someone can give me a valid reason why it should remain. So far, I havn't read one here.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Echo

[Diva]

Edited to include that the Disability Discrimination Act may come into effect here too as you cannot discriminate on the basis of the person's disability. One example I can think of is for competitors who are hearing impaired (the person, not the dog) and use sign langage to communicate with their dog. I don't think it would be reasonable to expect a hearing impaired person to have to try and speak english commands (if they are unable to) just for the sake of the competition. Other than how the command is given, if a person can train their dog for competition and meet all of the other requirements, that rule would prevent them from being able to enter. Then again, the same situation arises for any judge not familar with sign language - how can they reasonably expected to judge the use of commands in sign language as they apply to the rules of the competition?

Huh? A seriously hearing impaired person would surely just use signals. That is not against the rules, you don't have to use a verbal command. The bigger issue for someone with that substantial a hearing impediment would be hearing the judge's instructions!

In a training sense, I actually think it would be advantageous for the commands used in formal competition to be in a different language to that spoken in the house. In a non-English speaking house there would be less risk of those English commands being devalued by casual and imprecise usage. But I don't care about the rule one way or another.