I have been noticing that Rally is becoming more difficult too- which is a welcome change! Gone are the days when you could enter Novice Rally without ever teaching your dog to heel, and qualify by luring your dog around the course with a fake cookie. And that is awesome. I think that for people to take Rally seriously it needed to change.
Now we are seeing more and more NQ's, and less perfect scores. Courses are tough, and judging is harder. And those are all good changes. I still think that it could be made more difficult though- I think the time limit needs to be stricter, and I think there needs to be forced consistency among judges. Not only in the actual judging, but in the courses. For agility everything is regulated- rules are firm, and courses are preapproved. I think Rally should go the same way. It is misleading for people to have a super easy excellent course, and not get called for wide turns and sloppy sits and then go to a tough course with a judge that marks for every imperfection. There needs to be a balance. Of course I would lean towards the tougher judge, but that's just me. :)
Rally is obedience after all, and I believe that dogs should be well prepared for it. I think that in the coming years we will see better and better dogs in the ring- and an increase in tough courses and judging. Well, I am hoping so anyway! :)
8 comments:
Love the comments Amanda! You sound so much like me. I LOVE the challenge of things. It's what the whole adrenaline rush is all about. Right on Sister!!
I don't do formal Obedience or Rally so I am just throwing a comment out there....From what I've read, the AKC (I don't know about the CKC) added a Rally program as a way to try and interest more people in Obedience. Obedience had been losing competitors for years (esp. since agility became such a popular event) and Rally was meant to be the "easier, more fun" side of Obedience. If you eventually make the Rally challenges so tough and regimented that it resembles regular Obedience, it will turn off the newbies and people who just want to dabble. While I agree consistency in judging is a worthy goal, I don't think it should reach the rigors of formal Obedience. But, like I said, I don't compete in either so I can't say how I would feel if I was putting in all the training time....
Taryn, I agree with you! Rally should be fun, and less formal than Obedience- but there has to be a limit. Otherwise you get dogs and handlers in the ring who are not prepared at all and leave feeling bad about themselves because their dog was so poorly behaved. I just think there needs to be a balance between having fun, and setting yourself up for failure...
I agree. I think rally needs to re relazed but I think there should be some higher performance criteria. In years past I've some dogs pass novice classes that REALLY should not have. Even my husband who knows nothing about dogs could see that Rally was kind of a joke and wondered why I was doing it. But it's great for the dogs and fun for the handlers, just needs some better "passing criteria"
I agree, Amanda - especially on the time limit. During my table stewarding extravaganza this weekend, I was really surprised to see that the slowest runs took 3-4 times as long as the winning run. I knew some people were slow, but really.... I think this would also help with the untrained dog piece of it, as coaxing and cajoling always takes longer than a responsive round!
That said, after 3 years with Ziggy, I have newfound empathy for those with dogs who sometimes (often?) choose to ignore them in the ring :)
I am glad that they are making rally more challenging. I agree that it should be fun and less formal than traditional obedience, but at the same time, it should still take work to get your dog ready to compete. I actually got to the point where I had a hard time watching rally because you would see people "air cookie" their dogs through the whole run. If a dog cannot do a simple finish without following a fake cookie lure, then they are not ready to be in the ring, but these teams would pass and with decent scores. Rally should take as much skill and training as any other sport, but just on a more informal level in the ring. Informal but not easy, or what's the point?
I agree about rally - but as a challenge to myself I set high standards and won't wing it or go in if I'm not 150% we can do well. For one it is expensive! And number two you are just rehearsing bad habits. I know people who get a rn just as an easy title - and never get further. I see it as the first step into many more great runs in a ring I am nit comfortable with. It can be so painful when people "trick" the dog into it - we see it in agility too ... It only gets u so far training like that, and then people wonder why they can't get further and the dogs get bored. Ok done rambling :)
I agree Rally should be fun and some challenges are needed and should get harder at each level. I don't feel though that it should be marked as Obedience. Rally and Obedience are two different things and judges need to remember what they are marking. If people start to be marked too hard then entries will sadly go the way of obedience and only the people who are truly competitive will participate in it. You will lose the people who want to try something new and have fun with their dogs.
JMHO.... Julia
Post a Comment