Qualification trial - Page 7

If they change from what was initially reported will that be a good thing??  Also just a thought!!

I was there today. These protection score are the official results. They will not change. The judging was very close for the most part, as you see. Until those 2 scores were posted anyway. Unfortunately, with this 2 judge system, there is no critique given at all. So there is no way of knowing what one or the other judge saw. Needless to say there was more than 1 shocked look in the crowd. I will say that both Ronnie and Mike's protection routines were very nice. As their scores show. Wish them both well for tracking tomorrow. And good luck to tomorrows competitors.  Also congrats to the helpers. Their work was very consistent through out the day.

More than two results looked odd .. T. Floyd tracking and a couple in obedience and about three or four in protection .. looked like one judge was consistently lower than the other or one judge was consistently higher or both .. two SV accredited judges should be very close 2-3 points in most cases.  It is not surprising that judging can vary but they should at least track together with the same difference between their scores consistently.  Don't know which judge was scoring lower and it does not matter as he could be scoring completely right but if so the other judge is giving higher scores than warranted in some cases.

 I believe  other than those two the biggest discrepancy in protection was 5pts. That's understandable. (Judge could have been making notes and didn't see something...)  In the OB the biggest difference was with Frank Phillips of 5pts. with 83/88(see above) Most were with in 2 - 3 points. I can't make any informed observations as to the tracking results. Had to leave the house at 4:30 AM to make it for OB at 8:00AM so didn't get to see any.

It will be interesting to see how things pan out with tomorrows line-up.

Do the dogs go twice, or is there just two judges out on the field at the same time?

2 judges on at the same time. Left side score is USCA judge, right side score is WDA judge. This is the lamest way to pick a team. 
Bring in 3 respected judges from other countries and perform!!!! How does one judge give a 78 and other 94?? 78 is not passing
so how can you even do an avg is she failed?? It's ridiculous!! 

I ran the numbers from day one based on the point difference between the high and low scores for each contestant for each leg or event (tracking, obedience or protection).  The USCA participants ran 15 legs or events in total and had a differential of 25 points between the high and low scores that they received or -1.66 points average per event.  The WDA participants ran 11 legs or events and lost 50 points between the high and low scores which they received or -4.55 points average per event.  So on day one the USCA participants got an average 2.9 more points just for being USCA members per event.  Not sure which judge or judges is introducing this bias or why but it is there.  Krista Wade lost 20 of the 50 points in two legs but even if you take her scores out along with Frank Phillips (lost 8 points and the most for a USCA in two legs) the differential is 2 points negative per event per all other 6 WDA participant versus the remaining 9 USCA participants from day one.  One judge is scoring harder on nearly everyone and particularly harder on the WDA participants on day one. Maybe SV judges would not be so bad???  Probably the day one low scores should be tossed as something is not right??

The judging at the world qualifier should be done by a SV judge from another country. I don't think you need a panel but something has to be done. Last year in Wisconsin at the qualifier, there was a 19pt difference in the judging for one dog and a 9pt difference for another. When you are high sg from one judge and g from another, they can't be looking at the same dog. Remove all appearances of bias and preserve the integrity of the process by using foreign judges.I was in Wisconsin and saw track layers knowing whose track they were laying. The draw should occur after the tracks have been laid not before. Lots of things have been going on that compromise the integrity of the process, right down to WUSV rules violations. This is too important an event to have even a hint of impropriety.jmo

Judges who change their scoring based on the situation (club trial versus national trial) are not following the IPO standards.  The same IPO performance whether given at a club, regional, or national trial must get the same score from the same judge if that judge's scores are to be meaningful.  Once the judge decides to change the IPO standard to match the quality of the competitors that day the standard is compromised and the scores are meaningless.