Wcra Rule Clarification

[Fleesh]

If an athlete repeatedly bangs into another during the course of a race, goes out of their way to stop another runner passing them (i.e putting an arm out or pushing them). It isn't called "Just being competetive". The WRCA have an interesting definition of what can be disqualified bit I admire STRIKE WHIPPET'S common sense train of thought, if one of my dogs had a tendency to leaning on I'd pull it off the track too it's not safe for the other dogs for a start or fair.

I understand the WRCA ruling is probably very very different from that used in Non-Ped racing but deliberate impeding (leaning on and aggressive bumping etc.) is also an offence in the eye's of the Non-Ped racers and a disqualification offence. Sadly still though dogs slip through the net and get away with it (benefit of the doubt and sometimes not), I don't think there is much of a ruling as far as number of offences goes but I think one organisation has a 3 strikes and out rule.

One other thing the Non-Ped's have to deal with is seeding (i.e left and right hand runner) and the thing that gets on my nerves (and I know Vicky's too) is the wrong seeding of a dog whether deliberate or by mistake. That's when it gets hard to decide whether a dog is just running for it's side, not going in the direction it is seeded to (dangerous for other runners seeded the same way) or just deliberately going the opposite way in persuit of another dog or to deliberately impede another dog.

(You should put this topic in the general discussion forum then we can all put in our two-pennorth - Ped's Non-Ped and Coursers)

 

[Mark Roberts]

I admire STRIKE WHIPPET'S common sense train of thought

I don't think anyones ever said that about HannaH, COMMON SENSE she normaly talks non sense :- "

 

[Fleesh]

and from what I hear about you ... the less talk the better :b

 

[Judy]

If an athlete repeatedly bangs into another during the course of a race, goes out of their way to stop another runner passing them (i.e putting an arm out or pushing them). It isn't called "Just being competetive".

Yeah, but humans are supposedly a bit more intelligent that dogs (even whippets!). You can tell 'em the rules and if they repeatedly break them then you know it is deliberate rule breaking and not fair. I still don't think you could actually call it fighting though.

With a dog, obviously, you can't do that and you can't say for sure wether it is just going left or right because it has a preference for one side or the other. An awful lot of dogs cross over. Some just like to run up the middle behind the lure and will cross to get to that position. If it comes up against a dog that crosses the other way or will just not give way then you get banging all the way up the track.

I agree, it would be better if they didn't but you'd be disqualifying an awful lot of dogs if you did it every time that happened.

 

[Mark Roberts]

umm this thread seems to have lost it's way slightly, Scotts question was regarding the way in which dogs are re-trialled after the offence not what constitutes an offence?.

 

[Judy]

You're right as ever Mark :wub:

Remember M*A*R*R*O*W

 

[Mark Roberts]

i'm humbled you remember. :huggles:

 

[Scott Frodsham]

and from what I hear about you ... the less talk the better  :b

a bit harsh maybe ? the point of a discussion forum is that everybody gets to speak! 8)

 

[Strike Whippets]

What even Mark ?? :- "

 

[Mark Roberts]

Scott poor Fleesh is board as the non peds haven't got their own argument at the moment.

 

[BeeJay]

AND we have never got a response re what happens if the handicapping is wrong and the re-clearing trial is void. Will the dog get another chance to re-clear on the day? Or has it through no fault of it's own or it's owners lost the chance?

Anyway for all racing tomorrow have a good and fun day.

 

[Mark Roberts]

to answer your question BJ (and put my neck on the block) i'd say if it was a true unsatisfactory trial ie: a dog led or was behind all the way and so never passed or was passed i'd say with the RM's & onwers agreement offer another trial if the dogs were available.

 

[June Jonigk]

I think the WCRA rule that on a first offence, the whippet can do one trial to clear at the end of racing, does not mean that it can't do two. I think if the trial is not a satisfactory trial, the dog should run again changing the handicaps, or running so that it passes, and has a bit of a challenge. I see no point in a trial where a dog leads from the traps. Most dogs only tackle when put under pressure. If the dog in question is a good trapper, he should be put further back. It is in the owners interest to get it right, as it would not always be easy to get more dogs to run further trials. I think Racing Managers need more guidance on this subject, as they can't be expected to know if they are not told.

I didn't see the trial in question on Sunday, but I did hear people muttering that it was a waste of time, as the dog was in front from the beginning??

There has been quite a bit of controversy over disqualified dogs recently, and the committee we have now on the WCRA are the best I've known. I'm sure they will discuss this subject, and make the rules clearer for all concerned.

A lot of the problem has been that dogs are being disqualified time and time again, and still turn up for every open. I think people need to be seen to be doing something to stop the problem. I feel desperately sorry for anyone who has a "tackler", but we have to think of the safety of the other dogs in the race. My Dangermouse has never been disqualified, but in her first racing season, she looked across at another dog, and looked like she was thinking of having a go. I ran her in blinkers for 4 months, until I felt there was no risk of her doing anything. I would hate to be the owner of a dog who takes out another, or pushes it into the rollers ruining its racing career. I'm probably being a bit over the top here, but it could happen, and I'd rather be cautious, than very very sorry later.

Just my opinion folks!!

 

[Scott Frodsham]

There has been quite a bit of controversy over disqualified dogs recently, and the committee we have now on the WCRA are the best I've known.  I'm sure they will discuss this subject, and make the rules clearer for all concerned. 

I would like to think that common sense would prevail and that a 2nd or 3rd trial would be OK. :b

If this was not the case I'd not trial any dog DQ'ed at any Northern Open on the day and it'd have to go back to it's club to get back into open racing.

Regards,

Scott.

 

[john doe]

Please correct me if I am wrong but having read some of your veiws it seems you contradict yourselves.

You say that a dog that gets disqualified can have the opportunity to clear again at the end of the meeting, I see no problem with that providing suitable dogs are available to use for this clearance trial, but how many trials do you consider would be acceptable.

If the dog in question was a persistant offender Im sure you would not be so enthusiastic to offer them the same opportunity.

I thought the whole purpose of this was to get persistant offenders off the Open circuit and back to Club level until they have shown themselves to be able to race without any danger to themselves and others.

Owners are responsible for where and when they race their dogs and three good clearance trials does not always mean they are ready to race on the Open circuit again. Race Managers should have more input and advise owners as to wether they feel the dogs have reached an acceptable level, instead of giving the dog & owner the benefit of the doubt during a poor clearance attempt and signing the clearance forms,

Im sure these people know who they are. :x

 

[Scott Frodsham]

Im sure these people know who they are. :x

Name and shame if you have the courage of your convictions! :angry:

Who are you John Doe ?

At least have the balls(or tits, don't want to be accused of sexism) to put your name up! :b

Scott.

 

[Mark Roberts]

John Doe? well you've got me on that one.

Race Managers should have more input and advise owners as to wether they feel the dogs have reached an acceptable level, instead of giving the dog & owner the benefit of the doubt during a poor clearance attempt and signing the clearance forms,

Fully agree,

but come on let us in on who you are!

At least have the balls(or tits, don't want to be accused of sexism) to put your name up!

I think you'd have been acussed of everything now!

 

[Mark Roberts]

I'd like to Thank John.Doe for his nice e/mail he has just sent me with the Netsky Virus as an attachment.

unfortunatly for him/her it was blocked by Hotmail from reaching my computer, but had it got passed Hotmails virus scanners Norton 2004 Pro that i'm running would have stopped it anyway.

BETTER LOOK NEXT TIME PAL!

 

[john doe]

Good evening Mark

Sorry if you received a virus, I have not sent you anything so maybe you just wanted a response.

Well done.

What subjects would you like to discuss tonight.

 

[Mark Roberts]

A great coincidence that isn't it, you join K9 with the name john.doe and the day after I recieve an e/mail from a john.doe@someware.com with the netsky virus as an attachment!

I find it hard to descuss things with members who hide behind an alias, edite your profile to ad you real name then maybe we can talk.