Rally - Guidebook Section V - Missing A Station and Helping Exhibitors

Section V. Missing A Station and Helping Exhibitors

Okay, Rally Judges and exhibitors, I pose a hypothetical situation to the list: When Rally becomes a titling event, missing a station will be an NQ. The intention is that this will prevent someone from intentionally skipping a station which they KNOW their dog will not do. So, if you're judging and someone MISSES a station, do you call it to their attention to give them a chance to qualify, or do you let them NQ because it's their responsibility to run the course? Exhibitors, would you welcome the Judge "helping" you in this manner, or do you feel it's your responsibility to do the course on your own without interference? Would you consider it unfair if the Judge reminded an exhibitor about a missed station, or would you think it was a compassionate act?

Ethical questions need to be sorted out as realization of Rally as a titling event draws closer, so I thought I'd start posing a few questions that might be hard to answer.

Wow...as one that is prone to being "lost" on the course, I lean towards some hint. On the other and....is that fair to the exhibitor that runs the course without extra "help"? Shouldn't they get credit for doing it correctly without feeling that others got an extra boost? Maybe that moment of hesitation on their run was from a momentary loss of direction, and they didn't get a hint since it wasn't as obvious as my "lost in space" moments! I think maybe a judge is supposed to judge the performance, not "contribute to the cause". It might be an unfair influence on the outcome. And at what point do you stop helping? Should you mention that it was a 360 right, not a 360 left? Should you mention they forgot to have their dog sit on that one halt and they should re-do the exercise (only 3 points off instead of 10)? I hope to be a judge. And I will be pulling for every single exhibitor to be successful with all my heart! I think I will try to give my "help" on the walk through, pointing out anything I feel might require "extra concentration" or planning. Of course, I won't know each individual exhibitors personal bug-a-boo (mine are those 270's - seems to cause flashbacks to Geometry class, and then I can't think dog stuff! LOL!)

The first time I ever competed in rally it was at a trial where rally was held as an "exhibition" - before it was allowed to be non-regular. I did 2 exercises wrong and the judge didn't help me. But I've never done it again! I learned the hard way - by making the mistakes and blowing first place. I'm not saying the judge should or shouldn't help, but by me making the mistake, I am now more careful on my walkthroughs and haven't made those mistakes again.

Well, if the rule says you have to do all stations, that's what it says. If you miss one, after seeing the course map and doing a walk-through, you blew it. The judge provided both the map and briefing and is in no way required to babysit. It is the exhibitor's responsibility to walk-through and to know the course sequence and at least give each station the best possible try. No one else can take over the responsibility.

Ah, I understand where you're coming from with this, but the question was specifically about Qualifying versus Non Qualifying by MISSING a station. It would certainly NOT be fair to mention each mistake, thus affecting the number of points in the final score. What we're talking about is score or NO score, if they miss a station. These are new, green, nervous exhibitors -- should we help them not MISS something which would NQ them, or are they totally on their own?

Does the judge know which exhibitor is "That" new and green and which isn't? Are you speaking only of the A classes? (you didn't specify). The exhibitor is responsible for following the course as posted, walked-through, and laid out. I hold to the rules. And due to various oddities of life and dogs, I will exhibit in A classes.

We've already seen this sport made extremely beginner friendly... But if we also let the judge prompt constantly, we do just what some of our detractors have claimed from the beginning... that this is not an activity worthy of a title because it has been "so dumbed down". This is NOT an unreasonable standard.

I agree. Rally shouldn't be so "user friendly" that a qualifying score means nothing. I'm a person who gets big time stress before competing but if I goof, I goof, and hopefully won't make the same mistake the next time. Having NQ'd in Novice, I know it's not the end of the world. Whether Rally (or any obedience) comes easily to you and your dog or you have to train hard for it, that title should mean something and not be looked on as a "given".

I don't think exhibitors should get this kind of help in a trial. In a match, seminars and classes, yes. But not in a trial. I would certainly try to point out anything in a walk through that might be easily missed. But I don't think that kind of assistance is going to benefit everyone in the long run. What might be more helpful is to allow some time AFTER the trial (a few minutes) for exhibitors who did miss a station or did an exercise incorrectly to go back over the course and figure out how they missed the station.

I've never heard of a dog competition in which the judge coached the handlers. I think what's important is that the handlers can get lots of positive and useful feedback at the end of the course. If they missed a station, they will be NQ'd, but they should know which station they missed and will probably be a lot more careful next time.

I agree on this. Novice level Rally is not that hard and the signs are numbered. Even non-regular, it is still a competition and participants should be prepared to compete without having their hands held. (Gee, that sounds kind of harsh and I didn't mean for it to sound quite like that!) Local clubs should offer matches and training opportunities so that folks get a chance to learn Rally BEFORE they begin to compete. Lord knows, I have made enough Boo-boo's in the agility and obedience rings to qualify as an expert on that!!!

I am an "agility" minded person so my answer may be biased but I think it should be up to the competitor to accurately complete the course. To me that is part of the game. The judge should remain quiet.

"If" I were a judge, I would remind people during the walk-thru that missing a station is an NQ. Until people really understand the sport, a few reminders would not hurt. I realize that all my life I've heard "saying you didn't know" was not a valid excuse - for some strange reason. However, I couldn't sleep at night if I didn't give people the chance to "get it right". Once they've been told, tho, and they're on the course - they're on their own. I would not call them back to re-do a station. It's a good learning experience. We all waste money on entry fees at some point in our life. Teaches us what we need to work on for future shows.

You are right, it's good to start thinking about and discussing these kind of questions. IMHO, during an actual titling class it would be inappropriate for the judge to assist or guide the exhibitor in any way. The handler has an opportunity to walk the course beforehand. For the judge to jump in and point out the next station would be unfair to the other participants.

Gee - this is harder than I thought. At first, I thought the answer was easy - no way, should a Judge help during a competition...before or after is fine - but, during the course - it's me and my dog. Then, I remembered how much I would have appreciated the Judge at a show reminding me (after I caught myself doing a left instead of a right 360 and then missing the sign after that because I was in wrong position to see it) that "do overs" are allowed in Rally. But, that really isn't his role. The Judge's role is to plan course and to judge how we do.

Now, people who intentionally ignore signs because their dogs can't do the exercise should be penalized and should not qualify that run. Example: I don't use the swing finish (left), so it's pretty darn sloppy when I have to....but, we attempt it and do the best we can. No way I'd ever not try an exercise. I like looking like a fool. That's why I do obedience. Keeps me humble.

Do you think that maybe the Judge's extra help could be confined to the A Classes - where there will be newcomers to dog sports? I know (technically) you're supposed to judge A and B Classes the same...but, it always does my heart good to see the Novice A Judges cut the newcomers a break or two...I believe when I was in Novice A....I got my share of breaks.

So, to answer your question - in my opinion, while Rally is still new and there are no titles at stake...any additional help is appreciated. Once it becomes titling - any "extra" help should be confined to the true newcomers.

I think it would be the responsibility of the person doing the course to make sure that all the exercises were done. I think it would be unfair if the judge helped an exhibitor in that way. The exhibitor should be able to take that responsibility and in my mind the judge would be interfering. And this comes from one who had done that.

When you fill out an entry for any AKC event, the agreement on the back of the entry form says "I (we) acknowledge that the "Rules Applying to Dog been made available to me (us) and that I am (we are) familiar with their contents" Instead of aiding them in the ring, we should be (have a responsibility to) educate them as to the rules and requirements before they get to the ring.

As far as "missing a station" being an NQ, as you mentioned in your first e-mail, if it is NOT an NQ, you may not see much in the Novice classes, but in the advanced classes, there will definitely be choices made to skip something rather than not do it correctly.

If the exhibitor "misses" a station, the chances are pretty good that the course flow will be broken and they will realize they missed something. Like on an agility course, they'll get lost. (How many times has that happened to us?) They have the opportunity to go back and re-try (which they don't have in agility). If the judge reminds them that they missed a station, and they go back and re-try and that's the only mistake that was made, they loose 3 points and wind up with a 97. Another exhibitor comes in and makes 4 little 1 point errors, winds up with a 96 and gets bumped out of a placement by the team that got "aid" from the judge. Is that fair???

If all of the exhibitors are given a copy of the course, ample time to walk it and a briefing from the judge with time for questions, the playing field remains even for all. If the judge gives help to those who need it, the playing field is then uneven. The judge is there to judge the performance, not to determine who needs help and who doesn't. This past weekend, at a trial, I watched as one of my former students ran a beautiful, clean course till she got to one exercise. "Call Front, Finish Left Forward" she sat the dog. She wasn't familiar with the AKC signs and Bud's signs read differently. It was so hard for me to not yell "no sit" from the sidelines. I had to watch her loose those 10 points. When she came out of the ring, I showed her how the signs were different, but, ultimately, it was her responsibility to know the rules and the signs. Just my point of view.

If someone was totally lost on the course I can see NQ'ing and pointing them in the right direction to finish the course. That isn't quite the same as missing a station. I've seen people miss signs mostly when you have signs going in both directions.

Seriously though, you are absolutely right - the rules are very clear about the Judge saying "You may begin..." and that's it. No more comments, no more directions, no more anything.

And, as for the titles really being earned...true-true... I think we all want something to be proud of. It wouldn't be fair to have a judge "coach" a new (or an experienced) handler straight towards the title. As one of you said earlier....Rally is user-friendly enough - just as it is.

Just a bit of a potshot at your thought that the judge could coach a green handler. How would the judge know it's a green handler, not someone with experience who's having a bad hair day? :-) The judge speaks to give the forward direction... and gives no further directions... in concept, if not specifically in the rules.

Once it's a titling event, the title Must Be Earned. Yes, people will make mistakes. Life is not perfect. That's how we learn.

I really don't think that when it's a non-regular class at a trial the judge should give any coaching during the run. During a run-through or match, it's up to the club, the "starter"/judge, and the handler...unless house rules specify....

Okay listers, here's another one: I have seen new people clearly get "lost" on the course, and the Judge has helped them out by directing them to the next station. Occasionally I have seen the Judge tell the exhibitor when they are doing the exercise incorrectly so they could re-do the station. Personally, I don't have a problem with the Judge directing someone to the next station if they're lost, but I kind of think it's up to the exhibitor to perform the station correctly, or know that they need to try it again. Opinions please!

When judging, I try not to help.....as you never know if there was someone else that could have used help, but managed to stumble through with just a slight wobble - maybe a crooked sit that was scored because the handler was a bit disoriented. In a real "match" or "trial" this help or lack of it, would be unfair. In classes or fun matches, yes I help. If someone becomes terribly lost, I have said "check the number on the last exercise you did" - for some that gives them a way to find the next station (I myself, AM SO GRATEFUL for those numbers!! LOL!) and some remain lost.

I'm with you there totally. Don't need to get into those habits while it's a non-regular class or it could end up happening during a titling class. Oops! Complaint to AKC Rep? :-)

Personally, I wouldn't want to see a judge helping the exhibitors during judging. There is a walk-through, where the judge is supposed to be present to answer questions. The exhibitor has a chance to walk several times, and clarify anything they are unsure of with the judge during this period. I would have no problem with a judge advising an exhibitor here. What if, by helping team #105, they end up with a higher score than team #104 who needed no assistance? Do you really think #105 should beat #104? One agility judge I knew would sorta, kinda help lost handlers. They are not allowed to assist the handlers in any way. However, if one was obviously lost, she'd look toward the next obstacle. If the handler was astute, they'd see where to go. :-)

A while back we discussed the issue of a judge helping a handler in the ring during a trial (this could include a non-regular class as well as a regular class). At that time, the general response was NO. Don't see why that should change. When it comes to the tight turns of various types, it is impossible to do a correctly tight turn with the sign in the middle. I just went outside and set a 3 liter soda bottle on top of a magazine (size of most signs) on the patio and tried a 360� and a 270� with one of my Border Terriers. On the left turns, it's necessary to leave a heck of a lot of space to prevent hitting the sign, by my reckoning..... I'd suggest that many of those who make the turns around the sign are, again, those who have not done much training for this sport yet.... Face it, not all clubs have a Rally O class now, and not all folks who enter today have even worked with signs that much... if at all. Maybe it's time for some of you who have taught a number of classes and who have judged and done seminars, to write and submit articles to the dog magazines!!!!!! After all, the AKC obedience rules don't "teach" the sport, nor do the agility rules. They are interpreted to us by articles, books, and more experienced trainers and judges.

What I've done with this as a judge. When I do my walk through, I show exactly how this will be done, next to and slightly before the sign. If after, and no questions have come up, then I would -10 for incorrectly performing the exercise. The only time I vary from this is I had one person in a wheelchair that needed more room and thus I told her to circle the sign. The rules allow you to adapt for that type of situation. I also had to eliminate one cone from the figure 8, for her, as there wasn't enough room for her chair at the end. I'm talking about the 360 turns ONLY. I will not accept circling any signs. I have deducted 10 for incorrect on 270s, who have gone around the sign. I have this one performed just before the sign so the 2nd HALT ends up just to the right of it where the handler can still "see" the sign without doing a backbend. The Moving Side Step right that is continuous is done toward the right and continues to the next sign. Neither of these requires any change of forward direction as a circle or turn does. These are signs #20 & #40 that were mentioned. To my way of thinking, #40 is confusing with that right arrow. I believe that the line of travel is still in a forward direction not like that appears (almost like a right turn). #20's arrows are more clearly directed. JMHO

Good point to consider. Well, as these Rally runs are still (except for our valued friends in WWKC or APDT naturally) non-regular, I don't particularly have a problem with the judge mentioning something the exhibitor clearly is finding confusing to the exhibitor during the run, I think a deduction should be made to be fair to those who ran correctly without help, BUT I don't believe it should be done in a titling run. If there happened to be time to mention it to that exhibitor immediately after their run before the next exhibitor is on the course, certainly I would consider it considerate of the judge to take a moment to add a tiny piece of education to the exhibitor's experience in the ring. But I would imagine that won't have time to happen often!

I giggled at the image of myself attempting to do a 270 around the actual sign---Hey, I occasionally need to actually SEE the sign while I am doing the 270 to make sure I come out at the right point and I can't see that happening if I am circling the sign! However, I wouldn't mind complimenting the team that could manage to circle the 270 sign without knocking it down and managed to come out at the correct point of a 270 for their dexterity!! :-)

See, just when you think you have seen it all, something new comes up that no one had thought would be an issue! My last competition dog was partially responsible for tightening up some wording on agility rules years ago. She could come up with some very inventive ways to do an obstacle that managed to baffle the rules, so that the poor judge KNEW it wasn't right, but there was no real term for what she had done! They took the points anyway, but they were embarrassed when asked to defend it by onlookers (I didn't argue it; I knew it was wrong, too, but the rules didn't cover that situation IN SO MANY WORDS.)!

Great ideas, and this just shows you exactly why we DO need those extra months to practice running Rally as a non-regular class. Some judges would take points, some would let it go, or intervene. We really do need to help those who judge by making it plain what to do when silly stuff happens so that we get the standardized judging we need to proceed without problems. Looking forward every day to reading the list!

In my briefing, in Rally, I make sure to remind the handlers that they are not up against the clock. If they get lost, and realize it, stop and go back to the point at which they were lost and go from there. Now, that's not to say that if I were judging a Novice A Rally class and the handler was obviously lost, I wouldn't sort of wander over to the point where she lost her way, and stand there hoping she would take the hint, but I don't think it is fair for the judge to verbally guide the team in any way. If the handler is given a copy of the course, has ample opportunity to walk it and the judge is available for questions before the start of the class, it then becomes the handler's responsibility to maneuver her way through the maze.

Just remembered one more if a handler does a station out of order (which happens to be one of later in the course) a deduction is taken for being off course. When the team then gets to that station once back on coarse is a deduction for doing the exercise twice?

I haven't been able to find a deduction anywhere for being off-course. If you miss a station and have done a couple exercises beyond that and then realize what you've done and go back, the best course of action is to bypass those you've done or you will get a deduction for repeat of a station. The only thing you'd waste is time. However, if you are so freaked out by what you've done and can't remember which ones you did and where you went back, I'd just go back to the one I know I missed and re-do everything from there on. Lots of points off but no NQ. At least, that's how I interpret it. I have been known to be wrong, however, but I've just gone over the score sheet 3-5 times trying to figure out what to do and this is what I'd do if it were me.

I agree. There is no "off course" in Rally, and if they should REALIZE that they missed one and go back, they will lose time which would effectively take them out of the placements. I would not penalize otherwise, and Judges are not allowed to add requirements, so that would give them a chance to fix an error and still qualify.

Just remembered one more if a handler does a station out of order (which happens to be one of later in the course) a deduction is taken for being off course When the team then gets to that station once back on course is a deduction for doing the exercise twice?

I totally disagree with a couple of the ideas on "scoring". Rally rules are specifically defined where "missed station(s)" are involved. It is not considered going off course, it's "missed stations". Once missed, you cannot return to redo it. The only time a "retry" comes into play is while you are "at" that station. If someone goes off course, out of number sequence, they are deducted for each station missed to that number. Sorry folks, but that's why there's walk thrus :-) Today, if an exhibitor can't be present for the walk thru, I take them thru quickly before they compete. There are course posters displayed and handouts given for each course. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it! LOL

That's fine, if that's the way you see it. No where in the Rally rules is there anything mentioned about "off course". I have been in the Obedience ring, set up for the WRONG next exercise, and a couple of exercises later the Judge realized we skipped an exercise and we completed it at that time. And I qualified. My opinion is that IF the handler realizes they skipped a station before they reach the finish sign, and they return and do the station, I would likely qualify the dog. Most handlers will not realize that they skipped a station later, so it's not likely to happen often. IMHO, the intention is to do all the exercises, and if they do, they should qualify, even if they got one out of order. Rally is based on Obedience, not Agility. Even within some of the exercises in Obedience, if there is a mistake you can still qualify. If a dog goes out for the Retrieve on Flat and takes the jump on the way back -- that's not part of the exercise, but the dog COULD still qualify. I stand by my original opinion that the team should qualify if all the exercises are performed. No where in the rules does it say that you CAN'T go back and pick up a missed station, and if you DO go back, you have done all the exercises and should qualify.

In going over the Guidebook to get it ready for the web site, I came across an issue that was never fully resolved, so I decided to address it again since some time has passed.

Team misses a station. Handler realizes it before they leave the ring, goes back and does that exercise only, how do you score it?

Should we tell exhibitors in the briefing that, if they have missed a station and completed another, they may not go back and do the missed station? Nothing in the rules says they can't do it. Should we say nothing at all about missed stations and let them figure it out?

Now, if they complete the missed station and then re-do stations past that that they have already done, I would have to deduct 3 pts for each of those as re-tries.

Also, we must take into consideration that they will have 15 minutes to do multiple walk-thrus and they will have (hopefully) received a course map so that, theoretically, they have no excuse for missing a station. (Those of us in agility know that we can still easily blow an obstacle but we are talking major speed in agility and missing an obstacle in agility and a station in Rally is comparing apples and oranges.) Comments?

I think if they had already finished the course and just went back in for the one, it wouldn't be of much good as the flow of the course has just been altered.

I think also, that if they redid them all after that point.......3 point deduction for a redo would be pretty much death in points off unless it was only one or two from the end.

I don't think that I would deduct the three points with each redo. If they completed them fine the first time. I wouldn't re-judge the extra re-do's at all. No bettering or worsening of scores and the loss in time would pretty much take them out of any placings and would be enough.

Team misses a station. Handler realizes it before they leave the ring, goes back and does that exercise only, how do you score it?

I guess I think that if you do the next station, then it's over for going back. Or you can do one station, but that's it.

Should we tell exhibitors in the briefing �. rules says they can't do it. Should we say nothing at all about missed stations and let them figure it out?

I think you need to have rules that are NOT arbitrary, depending on the judge. Exhibitors should be informed before.

Also, we must take into consideration that they will have 15 minutes to do multiple walk-thrus.

People might miss a station due to hurrying, stress, whatever, but that is the name of the game. Performing the course smoothly in the order in which it was placed.

This was covered at the AKC Rally Seminar by Roger. I thought I included the information in my Seminar Report, but just in case I didn't -- here goes:

1. Handler passes station, goes to next one, realizes they missed a station and goes back to perform it BEFORE starting the next Station -- QUALIFYING. No different (at least to me) than the handler who "gets lost" on the course and has to find their way again.

2. Handler passes station, goes to next one and starts or completes the next exercise -- station they missed is officially skipped -- "Station Not Attempted" is listed as an NQ. At this point, even if they DID realize they missed it (and most don't) and went back, it was not attempted when it should have been, so it's an NQ.

Should we tell exhibitors in the briefing that�.

Something should probably be added to the rules to clarify officially WHEN a station is missed. Perhaps it could be done prior to Rally offering titles, but in any case, it will be addressed at the Rally Seminars. The handlers should have read the rules before entering Rally -- when they sign the entry form, they signify that they have. Missed stations (station not attempted) are listed under NQ in the rules, so they should know that.

Now, if they complete the missed station and then re-do stations �

Not appropriate, since they have already NQed.

Also, we must take into consideration that they will have 15 minutes to do multiple walk-thrus��

The one issue here that caused a lot of discussion at the Seminar was this: If the handler passes the station, and goes back BEFORE performing the next station and completes the one they went past, should it be a 3 point deduction for a retry of the station they went past but returned to perform (whew)?

Two views were: Yes, they missed the station and had to go back, so they didn't do it when they should have and they should get a 3 point deduction. Or: No, they didn't do it in the first place, so how could it be a re-try? Let them go back and do the station; they lose time, and move on. Listers, things like this are GOING to come up from time to time, and most of the time it's going to be stuff we never thought would ever happen in the ring, and we'll have to figure out how to handle it. That will be addressed by Seminars and future Advisory Committees, and the rules will be changed to reflect the growth of the sport. Stuff like this (how the heck do I score THAT) still happen in Obedience, and good gracious, the rule book is 61 pages and still growing. We just have to tackle these things as they come up, and this is a perfect format for all of us to discuss our ideas of how to handle things, and how they will impact the sport.

Looking forward to hearing how some of you would score the "go back" station -- 3 points, or no deduction. From my point of view, if they were astute enough to catch the error, I'd let it go with lost time and no deduction, although at the seminar I believe I had the opposite view. I would not want to penalize the (excuse the reference, since I'm close to resembling it) "little old lady" that gets confused and lost on the course momentarily, but works hard to find her way and get back on course. Rally is a "forgiving" sport, and I think this would be in keeping with the Rally spirit.

For more information e-mail us

Home ~~ History ~~ AKC ~~ UKC ~~ WWKC ~~ APDT Links