A Real Challenge

[ellz]

Black and white photo of red/tan dog Eng Ch Pitbul Red Regent. Many people have called this "reverse tan", but it is more likely the tan points being expressed on a red dog.

[Sandra777]

Dark preferred but may bear some relation to coat colour. Round, of medium size, and set to look straight ahead. Eye rims dark.

If you wish to state the standard please do so in context.

Dark preferred..... BUT MAY BEAR SOME RELATION TO THE COLOUR OF THE COAT......which means the lighter the coat the lighter the acceptability of the eye colour is. conversely, the darker the dog, the darker the eye should be.

But yellow?...never.

If the eyes MAY bear some relation to coat colour then very light yellow tinged eyes are perfectly acceptable on fawn dogs - so never say never. My point which you seem to have missed in your anger is that the colour of a dog's eyes is cosmetic and the standard only says that dark eyes are preferred - not that light/yellow/green/blue/purple or orange eyes are to be disqualified.

Black and tan has never been a disqualification in Australia - the Stafford standard in Australia has never included disqualifications.

You seem to believe dogs are judged on their faults - good judges judge on virtues.

Edited to fix the quote

Edited January 8, 2013 by Sandra777

[fixer]

"There is lot of tan pointed SBT's out there"....utter rubbish.

Tan points indicate Black & Tan , previously a disqualification now merely Highly Undesirable.

No ethical responsible breeder would counternance using a Black & Tan in their breeding, nor would any ethical responsible KNOWLEDGABLE judge ever award one.

WRONG!!! Black and tan is not a colour it is a pattern. It is whatever base colour plus the tan points gene. There are many other colours, including reds that show the tan patterning. Smut dogs carry the tan point gene. Sable/smut doesn't exist without it.

Many dogs are awarded by knowledgeable judges which exhibit this pattern, there are many brindle dogs out there which have brindling/pencilling in the tan point areas. Most breed standards which include the tan points gene specifically mention tan that is from the palest cream to the darkest red and many specifically mention that pencilling is not desirable.

The original Stafford standard was written before the genetics of colour inheritance were understood.

I didn't say it was a colour. Brindle is a colour, but it is not considered to be B&T.

B&T is more a description than a pattern if get down to the nitty gritty.

If I say "brindle" you know exactly what I am speaking of. Ditto "B&T". Never the twain shall meet

For those wondering, think Rottweiler, Dobermann & any of the four eyed dogs.

Eyebrows, cheeks, muzzle, chest, feet/legs, under the tail.

Tan points indicate B&T, it doesn't matter how faint they are, it's were they are that is the indicator.

The standard says it is ''highly undesirable"

Therefore it should not be awarded.

The reason it is "highly undesirable: is because it is feared once it took hold it could take over.

Those who don't care to honour their breed standards should find something else to bugger up.

btw. The original standard disqualified what was referred to as "liver", which it said by many knowledgable long time breeders to be todays "blue".

[Sandra777]

I didn't say it was a colour. Brindle is a colour, but it is not considered to be B&T.

B&T is more a description than a pattern if get down to the nitty gritty.

If I say "brindle" you know exactly what I am speaking of. Ditto "B&T". Never the twain shall meet

For those wondering, think Rottweiler, Dobermann & any of the four eyed dogs.

Eyebrows, cheeks, muzzle, chest, feet/legs, under the tail.

Tan points indicate B&T, it doesn't matter how faint they are, it's were they are that is the indicator.

The standard says it is ''highly undesirable"

Therefore it should not be awarded.

The reason it is "highly undesirable: is because it is feared once it took hold it could take over.

Those who don't care to honour their breed standards should find something else to bugger up.

btw. The original standard disqualified what was referred to as "liver", which it said by many knowledgable long time breeders to be todays "blue".

Black and Tan is as in the classic Dobermann, Rottweiler markings - black with tan markings.

Tan pattern, as has already been pointed out to you is a PATTERN which expresses itself in all colours - red & cream, blue & silver, black & brindle, black & tan are all the same PATTERN however the SBT breed standard specifically states Black & Tan so if you want to be pedantic it does NOT include any of the other expressions of the gene. I believe it should & I like ot believe the original writers of the standard intended it to mean all patterns but it doesn't. When the standard was changed in the 1980's it should have been clarified IMO because by then it was understood that the gene wasn't necessarily expressed as straight black & tan - but it wasn't clarified so the anomaly remains.

The original standard didn't include any disqualifications any more than the 1949 standard did.

[ellz]

"There is lot of tan pointed SBT's out there"....utter rubbish.

Tan points indicate Black & Tan , previously a disqualification now merely Highly Undesirable.

No ethical responsible breeder would counternance using a Black & Tan in their breeding, nor would any ethical responsible KNOWLEDGABLE judge ever award one.

WRONG!!! Black and tan is not a colour it is a pattern. It is whatever base colour plus the tan points gene. There are many other colours, including reds that show the tan patterning. Smut dogs carry the tan point gene. Sable/smut doesn't exist without it.

Many dogs are awarded by knowledgeable judges which exhibit this pattern, there are many brindle dogs out there which have brindling/pencilling in the tan point areas. Most breed standards which include the tan points gene specifically mention tan that is from the palest cream to the darkest red and many specifically mention that pencilling is not desirable.

The original Stafford standard was written before the genetics of colour inheritance were understood.

I didn't say it was a colour. Brindle is a colour, but it is not considered to be B&T.

B&T is more a description than a pattern if get down to the nitty gritty.

If I say "brindle" you know exactly what I am speaking of. Ditto "B&T". Never the twain shall meet

For those wondering, think Rottweiler, Dobermann & any of the four eyed dogs.

Eyebrows, cheeks, muzzle, chest, feet/legs, under the tail.

Tan points indicate B&T, it doesn't matter how faint they are, it's were they are that is the indicator.

The standard says it is ''highly undesirable"

Therefore it should not be awarded.

The reason it is "highly undesirable: is because it is feared once it took hold it could take over.

Those who don't care to honour their breed standards should find something else to bugger up.

btw. The original standard disqualified what was referred to as "liver", which it said by many knowledgable long time breeders to be todays "blue".

Rubbish...liver is liver.

And ANY colour can have tan points.

Comparing a B&T Stafford to a Rottweiler or Dobermann is plain ridiculous given that genetically, black doesn't appear in the Stafford.

How is CORRECTLY interpreting a colour from a breed standard, or applying faults/virtues to a breed buggering it up? You have some odd ideas fixer, whoever you are.

[conztruct]

If the provision was mandated it wouldn't be compulsory to "challenge'' even if you did know the standard had been prostituted.

I am only speaking of obvious to the eye of those who know.....& care.

Judges have the option to non award. The integrity of the breeds should come first & foremost in their "opinion"

Examples stated on a different website & from different states included obviously over height Bull Terrier ( miniatures)

Ditto lakeland Terriers

A black brindle SBT with yellow eyes.

I was personally in a group conversation a judge joined & was then informed she had awarded BOB to a SBT with tan points.

It was not the judges fault because the offending markings were well hidden....her reply though had people scratching their heads.

"I don't judge colour, I judge type"

A judge who obviously didn't know the standard of the breed she was judging.

Other breeds I can remember off hand were Bostons with teeth visible when the mouth was closed.

Rotties which are timid & others with a clearly visible white markings.

There were others, but I can't recall them, nor do really want to waffle on.

Except for the conversation the rest is all third hand. But it indicates that if given the chance breeders with the courage might just step forward & be counted.

If came to pass, it would snap the judging community into line, & that wouldn't be a bad thing.

I agree that a judge should know and action disqualifying faults but many faults are not disqualifying.

I must say that I kind of agree with the judge's comments in your answer above. I am quite ignorant of the Staffie standard but you are suggesting that the dog with the undesirable colouring should have been discounted because of that fault. What if as the judge says, they thought it was a better type than the others presented, what if it had a pump-action tail and the others didn't? The judge should be judging the overall dog - sure any fault should come into consideration but so should the virtues of the dog.

Again with the mini bull terriers, being over height is a fault and I've seen many challenges refused based on this and other faults in the dogs...a lot of judges understand that the minis are also currently in an extended interbreeding program with the standard bullies to eliminate some debilitating genetic conditions (PLL) and size is one of the sacrifices of doing this.

[Rebanne]

So Fixer what breed do you show?

[Dogsfevr]

Sour grapes

[fixer]

Dark preferred but may bear some relation to coat colour. Round, of medium size, and set to look straight ahead. Eye rims dark.

If you wish to state the standard please do so in context.

Dark preferred..... BUT MAY BEAR SOME RELATION TO THE COLOUR OF THE COAT......which means the lighter the coat the lighter the acceptability of the eye colour is. conversely, the darker the dog, the darker the eye should be.

But yellow?...never.

If the eyes MAY bear some relation to coat colour then very light yellow tinged eyes are perfectly acceptable on fawn dogs - so never say never. My point which you seem to have missed in your anger is that the colour of a dog's eyes is cosmetic and the standard only says that dark eyes are preferred - not that light/yellow/green/blue/purple or orange eyes are to be disqualified.

Black and tan has never been a disqualification in Australia - the Stafford standard in Australia has never included disqualifications.

You seem to believe dogs are judged on their faults - good judges judge on virtues.

Edited to fix the quote

Standards state departure from the above are to be considered faults etc,etc, etc.......

At first appraisal dogs are judged on their virtues, but with exceptionly strongly represented breeds one ends up working backwards & it is the faults that end up playing the leading role.

Australia honours country of origin standards. Unfortunatley.

For as long as B&T was a disqualification in G.B. it was a disqualification in Australia.

I don't know when the change was made, but I have an idea it was in 1987,(not really sure though) & I don't know when the first SBT hit these shores. Late 40's early 50's i'm thinking. Taking WW11 into consideration.

However, Highly Undesirable is less than a half a heart beat from disqualification. It's the p.c. way of saying Not to be Considered.

Back to the subject of my non anger....frustration? A little.

Accepting that dark eyes are preferred. (At least we both agree on something)

And conceding the breed coat colours range from black, through brindle to red fawn blue white, which end of the colour range would you say the darkest eyes would most relate to, & from there the allowances would be made for lighter coloured coats with lighter colour eyes? Yes? No?

Just beacause a dog has a lighter coat doesn't necessarily mean it automatically has lighter coloured eyes either.

Most still have reasonably dark eyes, damn near black in the majority of cases....as per the standard.

Your wobbly interpretation of the eye colour is the reason breeds get out of whack.

I'm thinking you have just backed yourself into a corner & have decided to just keep swinging regardless.

Whoops

Just had another thought.

It wasn't your dog they were speaking about was it?

Anyhow.

In the end the honest & the ethical will keep the breeds pointed in the right direction.

[fixer]

If the provision was mandated it wouldn't be compulsory to "challenge'' even if you did know the standard had been prostituted.

I am only speaking of obvious to the eye of those who know.....& care.

Judges have the option to non award. The integrity of the breeds should come first & foremost in their "opinion"

Examples stated on a different website & from different states included obviously over height Bull Terrier ( miniatures)

Ditto lakeland Terriers

A black brindle SBT with yellow eyes.

I was personally in a group conversation a judge joined & was then informed she had awarded BOB to a SBT with tan points.

It was not the judges fault because the offending markings were well hidden....her reply though had people scratching their heads.

"I don't judge colour, I judge type"

A judge who obviously didn't know the standard of the breed she was judging.

Other breeds I can remember off hand were Bostons with teeth visible when the mouth was closed.

Rotties which are timid & others with a clearly visible white markings.

There were others, but I can't recall them, nor do really want to waffle on.

Except for the conversation the rest is all third hand. But it indicates that if given the chance breeders with the courage might just step forward & be counted.

If came to pass, it would snap the judging community into line, & that wouldn't be a bad thing.

I agree that a judge should know and action disqualifying faults but many faults are not disqualifying.

I must say that I kind of agree with the judge's comments in your answer above. I am quite ignorant of the Staffie standard but you are suggesting that the dog with the undesirable colouring should have been discounted because of that fault. What if as the judge says, they thought it was a better type than the others presented, what if it had a pump-action tail and the others didn't? The judge should be judging the overall dog - sure any fault should come into consideration but so should the virtues of the dog.

Again with the mini bull terriers, being over height is a fault and I've seen many challenges refused based on this and other faults in the dogs...a lot of judges understand that the minis are also currently in an extended interbreeding program with the standard bullies to eliminate some debilitating genetic conditions (PLL) and size is one of the sacrifices of doing this.

B&T is in SBT's Is "highly Undesirable.

If the judge actually know the standard & did think this dog was the pick she should have non awarded the whole lot.

A much better result for the breed.

Just turning up shouldn't guarantee a result.

[Sandra777]

For as long as B&T was a disqualification in G.B. it was a disqualification in Australia.

I don't know when the change was made, but I have an idea it was in 1987,(not really sure though) & I don't know when the first SBT hit these shores. Late 40's early 50's i'm thinking. Taking WW11 into consideration.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Black and tan has never been a disqualification in the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed standard in the UK so it has never been a disqualification in the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed standard in Australia.

The original breed standard (1935) had B&T & Liver Coloured as "not to be encouraged". The 1949 revision kept this wording. The 1980's revision changed it to undesirable.

Black and tan has never been a disqualification in the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed standard in the UK so it has never been a disqualification in the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed standard in Australia.

And conceding the breed coat colours range from black, through brindle to red fawn blue white, which end of the colour range would you say the darkest eyes would most relate to, & from there the allowances would be made for lighter coloured coats with lighter colour eyes? Yes? No?

Just beacause a dog has a lighter coat doesn't necessarily mean it automatically has lighter coloured eyes either.

Most still have reasonably dark eyes, damn near black in the majority of cases....as per the standard.

Ignoring the fact that white isn't a colour - eye colour is cosmetic. If you were a judge (god forbid!) and were presented with your perfect interpretation of the breed standard but it was a black brindle with yellow eyes would you:

Non-award the dog?

Award it Best of Sex but withhold the CC?

Put it last in it's class to a bunch of inferior quality dogs with dark eyes?

What part of COSMETIC fault do you have a problem with?

Your wobbly interpretation of the eye colour is the reason breeds get out of whack.

Thanks for the compliment - don't think I'm capable of getting breeds out of whack all by myself, pretty sure I don't have that much influence, but thanks anyway

I'm thinking you have just backed yourself into a corner & have decided to just keep swinging regardless.

Whoops

You call that thinking? OK

Just had another thought.

It wasn't your dog they were speaking about was it?

Since you lack to intestinal fortitude to name names or places how will we ever know.

Anyhow.

In the end the honest & the ethical will keep the breeds pointed in the right direction.

Yep, we'll certainly try to, despite your best efforts.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Sandra777

[ellz]

Standards state departure from the above are to be considered faults etc,etc, etc.......

As I have already posted in this thread, and cut and pasted from the Staffordshire Bull Terrier standard, as you requested specific quotes from that standard....

Faults: Any departure from the foregoing points should be considered a fault and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded should be in exact proportion to its degree and its effect upon the health and welfare of the dog.

At first appraisal dogs are judged on their virtues, but with exceptionly strongly represented breeds one ends up working backwards & it is the faults that end up playing the leading role.

Fault judging is not encouraged in ANY judge's training scheme. However at the end of the day, if faced with two extraordinarily good specimens a judge "may" use a cosmetic issue to split them. It would be expected though that virtues are considered first and foremost.

Australia honours country of origin standards. Unfortunatley.

For as long as B&T was a disqualification in G.B. it was a disqualification in Australia.

Australia has NEVER had disqualifications in a standard until recently when country of origin standards were introduced and even then, there are few breeds which actually boast disqualifying faults.

However, Highly Undesirable is less than a half a heart beat from disqualification. It's the p.c. way of saying Not to be Considered.

No, actually it is the p.c. way of saying "Highly Undesirable".

Back to the subject of my non anger....frustration? A little.

Accepting that dark eyes are preferred. (At least we both agree on something)

And conceding the breed coat colours range from black, through brindle to red fawn blue white, which end of the colour range would you say the darkest eyes would most relate to, & from there the allowances would be made for lighter coloured coats with lighter colour eyes? Yes? No?

Just beacause a dog has a lighter coat doesn't necessarily mean it automatically has lighter coloured eyes either.

Most still have reasonably dark eyes, damn near black in the majority of cases....as per the standard.

Which is not the argument. You were the one who specifically mentioned yellow eyes on a black Stafford. Firstly, as we all know, black Staffords don't exist and second to which, I'd rather have yellow eyes (or a black/tan) than a dog with a bad bite.

Your wobbly interpretation of the eye colour is the reason breeds get out of whack.

And your wobbly assassination is the reason why breeders shake their heads.

I'm thinking you have just backed yourself into a corner & have decided to just keep swinging regardless.

Dunno...given your apparent change of tack, I'm not convinced the same couldn't apply to you....:laugh:

Whoops

Just had another thought.

It wasn't your dog they were speaking about was it?

What the winner or the loser? Obviously you were the loser which seems to me to be a bit of a sore point and the reason for your judge-bashing thread in the first place.

In the end the honest & the ethical will keep the breeds pointed in the right direction.

Which is precisely why Sandra777 has been in the breed successfully for such a long time. Given that you are hiding under a pseudonym, there is no way of ascertaining if the same applies to you.....

[Rebanne]

and to think I was chastised for wondering if it was a case of sour grapes

[conztruct]

If the provision was mandated it wouldn't be compulsory to "challenge'' even if you did know the standard had been prostituted.

I am only speaking of obvious to the eye of those who know.....& care.

Judges have the option to non award. The integrity of the breeds should come first & foremost in their "opinion"

Examples stated on a different website & from different states included obviously over height Bull Terrier ( miniatures)

Ditto lakeland Terriers

A black brindle SBT with yellow eyes.

I was personally in a group conversation a judge joined & was then informed she had awarded BOB to a SBT with tan points.

It was not the judges fault because the offending markings were well hidden....her reply though had people scratching their heads.

"I don't judge colour, I judge type"

A judge who obviously didn't know the standard of the breed she was judging.

Other breeds I can remember off hand were Bostons with teeth visible when the mouth was closed.

Rotties which are timid & others with a clearly visible white markings.

There were others, but I can't recall them, nor do really want to waffle on.

Except for the conversation the rest is all third hand. But it indicates that if given the chance breeders with the courage might just step forward & be counted.

If came to pass, it would snap the judging community into line, & that wouldn't be a bad thing.

I agree that a judge should know and action disqualifying faults but many faults are not disqualifying.

I must say that I kind of agree with the judge's comments in your answer above. I am quite ignorant of the Staffie standard but you are suggesting that the dog with the undesirable colouring should have been discounted because of that fault. What if as the judge says, they thought it was a better type than the others presented, what if it had a pump-action tail and the others didn't? The judge should be judging the overall dog - sure any fault should come into consideration but so should the virtues of the dog.

Again with the mini bull terriers, being over height is a fault and I've seen many challenges refused based on this and other faults in the dogs...a lot of judges understand that the minis are also currently in an extended interbreeding program with the standard bullies to eliminate some debilitating genetic conditions (PLL) and size is one of the sacrifices of doing this.

B&T is in SBT's Is "highly Undesirable.

If the judge actually know the standard & did think this dog was the pick she should have non awarded the whole lot.

A much better result for the breed.

Just turning up shouldn't guarantee a result.

That actually may be the case, but perhaps the judge considered the exhibit worthy of the award on the basis that said highly undersirable fault was not detrimental to the health of the animal as the standard says when considering the degree of seriousness, and as the fault was highly undesirable rather than disqualifying, they were ok with awarding a challenge.

It's purely speculation as to why a judge will and will not award and we are not always privy to their interpretation of the standard to know if they do or do not know it. I assume that if you were presented an exhibit with this colouring that you'd place it well below others of the breed - what faults would you consider more acceptable in others though - no pump action tail, inclined canines, poor topline? I'm not a judge but I'd always consider a dog with a coat colour fault more desireable than a dog with very poor construction.

[Sandra777]

pump action tail,

Sorry conztruct this one is just killing me :laugh: :laugh: Staffords, locked and loaded. :rofl:

Pump HANDLE tail :D

[conztruct]

pump action tail,

Sorry conztruct this one is just killing me :laugh: :laugh: Staffords, locked and loaded. :rofl:

Pump HANDLE tail :D

Whoops!!! I did say I was ignorant to the breed standard - ;)

[fixer]

For as long as B&T was a disqualification in G.B. it was a disqualification in Australia.

I don't know when the change was made, but I have an idea it was in 1987,(not really sure though) & I don't know when the first SBT hit these shores. Late 40's early 50's i'm thinking. Taking WW11 into consideration.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Black and tan has never been a disqualification in the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed standard in the UK so it has never been a disqualification in the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed standard in Australia.

The original breed standard (1935) had B&T & Liver Coloured as "not to be encouraged". The 1949 revision kept this wording. The 1980's revision changed it to undesirable.

Black and tan has never been a disqualification in the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed standard in the UK so it has never been a disqualification in the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed standard in Australia.

And conceding the breed coat colours range from black, through brindle to red fawn blue white, which end of the colour range would you say the darkest eyes would most relate to, & from there the allowances would be made for lighter coloured coats with lighter colour eyes? Yes? No?

Just beacause a dog has a lighter coat doesn't necessarily mean it automatically has lighter coloured eyes either.

Most still have reasonably dark eyes, damn near black in the majority of cases....as per the standard.

Ignoring the fact that white isn't a colour - eye colour is cosmetic. If you were a judge (god forbid!) and were presented with your perfect interpretation of the breed standard but it was a black brindle with yellow eyes would you:

Non-award the dog?

Award it Best of Sex but withhold the CC?

Put it last in it's class to a bunch of inferior quality dogs with dark eyes?

What part of COSMETIC fault do you have a problem with?

Your wobbly interpretation of the eye colour is the reason breeds get out of whack.

Thanks for the compliment - don't think I'm capable of getting breeds out of whack all by myself, pretty sure I don't have that much influence, but thanks anyway

I'm thinking you have just backed yourself into a corner & have decided to just keep swinging regardless.

Whoops

You call that thinking? OK

Just had another thought.

It wasn't your dog they were speaking about was it?

Since you lack to intestinal fortitude to name names or places how will we ever know.

Anyhow.

In the end the honest & the ethical will keep the breeds pointed in the right direction.

Yep, we'll certainly try to, despite your best efforts.

Concede.

Not to be encouraged changed to Highly undesirable. It is still P.c for not to be considered which ever way you look at it.

One correction, just to save a little face... 1948.

To answer your questions.

I would most likely award first in class & would not consider it for a c.c.

If there wasn't another entry that I.M.O was of such merit as to be an Aust Ch I would not issue a c.c.

Intestinal fortitude? If the dog had have been named I could ask.

So, do you have a black brindle with yellow eyes?

If white is not a colour what is it?

White is listed as a colour in the standard. Also "Any of the above with....what? no colour? Just a big patch of nothing.

Come on.

Why are dogs now registered as white with red/black/brindle markings instead of more easily recognised & still in popular use "Red/Black Pied" if white isn't a recognised colour.

What is Pied?. Predominately white with another colour is what.

Define your meaning of "Cosmetic" ....improving the appearance is mine? Which, in most instances, is only temporary.

Every fault I mentioned are not "cosmetic"..they are ''genetic"

They will be passed on.

The individual influence of one dog is not effectively diminish before 3 or 4 generations have passed.

Plenty of puppies could be whelped in the mean time.

I would love to see your reaction if your breeding bitch threw a litter of B&Ts with yellow eyes.

You would have no idea no idea where it came from.

Not that it matters, because it doesn't really exist? right? oh so wrong.

You wont get the breed out of whack alone...it will take a couple of generations with your close enough is good enough rational.

You can't just pick the bits & pieces that suit your style.

You can't run with the fox & hunt with the hounds.

You did land a blow but you're still in that naughty corner, keep swinging.

You might get lucky again.

I'm criticising your written thoughts, not your results.

Simply because I don't know you or your results.

Afford me the same courtesy.

[fixer]

If the provision was mandated it wouldn't be compulsory to "challenge'' even if you did know the standard had been prostituted.

I am only speaking of obvious to the eye of those who know.....& care.

Judges have the option to non award. The integrity of the breeds should come first & foremost in their "opinion"

Examples stated on a different website & from different states included obviously over height Bull Terrier ( miniatures)

Ditto lakeland Terriers

A black brindle SBT with yellow eyes.

I was personally in a group conversation a judge joined & was then informed she had awarded BOB to a SBT with tan points.

It was not the judges fault because the offending markings were well hidden....her reply though had people scratching their heads.

"I don't judge colour, I judge type"

A judge who obviously didn't know the standard of the breed she was judging.

Other breeds I can remember off hand were Bostons with teeth visible when the mouth was closed.

Rotties which are timid & others with a clearly visible white markings.

There were others, but I can't recall them, nor do really want to waffle on.

Except for the conversation the rest is all third hand. But it indicates that if given the chance breeders with the courage might just step forward & be counted.

If came to pass, it would snap the judging community into line, & that wouldn't be a bad thing.

I agree that a judge should know and action disqualifying faults but many faults are not disqualifying.

I must say that I kind of agree with the judge's comments in your answer above. I am quite ignorant of the Staffie standard but you are suggesting that the dog with the undesirable colouring should have been discounted because of that fault. What if as the judge says, they thought it was a better type than the others presented, what if it had a pump-action tail and the others didn't? The judge should be judging the overall dog - sure any fault should come into consideration but so should the virtues of the dog.

Again with the mini bull terriers, being over height is a fault and I've seen many challenges refused based on this and other faults in the dogs...a lot of judges understand that the minis are also currently in an extended interbreeding program with the standard bullies to eliminate some debilitating genetic conditions (PLL) and size is one of the sacrifices of doing this.

B&T is in SBT's Is "highly Undesirable.

If the judge actually know the standard & did think this dog was the pick she should have non awarded the whole lot.

A much better result for the breed.

Just turning up shouldn't guarantee a result.

That actually may be the case, but perhaps the judge considered the exhibit worthy of the award on the basis that said highly undersirable fault was not detrimental to the health of the animal as the standard says when considering the degree of seriousness, and as the fault was highly undesirable rather than disqualifying, they were ok with awarding a challenge.

It's purely speculation as to why a judge will and will not award and we are not always privy to their interpretation of the standard to know if they do or do not know it. I assume that if you were presented an exhibit with this colouring that you'd place it well below others of the breed - what faults would you consider more acceptable in others though - no pump action tail, inclined canines, poor topline? I'm not a judge but I'd always consider a dog with a coat colour fault more desireable than a dog with very poor construction.

Repeat.

A c.c does not have to be awarded. Whole breeds have been non awarded for less serious faults than "highly undesirable"

Besides

My comment was about the judge not knowing that fault was highly undesirable. Ignorance of the standard was the issue.

I doubt any judge would knowingly award a dog with a highly undesirable fault.

It's a biggy.

To big to be an Australian Champion.

Showies don't exhibit dogs with very poor construction.

[Dogsfevr]

Showies don't exhibit dogs with very poor construction.

So you have never seen a poorly constructed dog in the ring??

Interesting because i have been to numerous states & seen plenty

[fixer]

Very poor construction?

As in VERY POOR construction?

No

No I haven't.

Obviously we are in different rings.