UKC shares historic update for Field Dog Stud Book (FDSB) eligible breeds. See News section for full details.

I Accept

United Kennel Club (UKC) is an international dog registry celebrating bonds, rewarding ability, and preserving the value of a pedigree. We use cookies to capture information such as IP addresses and tailor the website to our clients' needs. We also use this information to target and measure promotional material. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information.

Skip to main content
Facebook Instagram Subscribe to E-news YouTube

Judges Assigning Someone Else to Judge a No-No; Other Beagle News

Full Circle

August 22, 2017

Source: Allen Gingerich

Barred Individuals at the Event

Q: May a barred individual be present at a licensed event?

A: This question comes up frequently so it might be a good one to cover in this column. The answer is yes. While they may be present at an event, a barred individual may not otherwise participate in any form. They may not be involved with taking entries, drawing casts, guiding a cast, judging a cast, spectating on a cast (sitting in the truck is considered spectating), or have anything to do with any portion of the event.

A barred individual may, however, be a member of a club and help work the kitchen, sell raffle tickets and things of that nature during an event. They may also watch a bench show but may not otherwise be involved in the show.

While clubs or participants should not knowingly allow a barred individual to participate, as noted above, it is the barred individual who is responsible for their own terms while suspended. However, any participant knowingly allowing a barred individual to ride along with them to the woods during the hunt is subject to suspension. Anyone that is witness to any such violations should report the infraction to UKC.

Judges Assigning Someone Else to Judge a No-No

Q: I was on a cast the other weekend where the club official had assigned a hunting judge on our cast. After arriving at our location to hunt, and before we cut the dogs loose, our judge asked if anyone else in the cast would like to judge. One of the other cast members said they would judge if he wanted him to. I was a little reluctant to say anything because that's not who the Master of Hounds had assigned; however, I didn't want to make a big deal of it so I didn't oppose it. Long story short, this guy was not qualified to judge and we had all kinds of problems on the cast with him making bad calls and allowing things to get out of control.

Regardless, should the assigned judge even have the authority to pass that responsibility on to another member of the cast?

A: The judge should not have that authority, in the manner as described. The rules allow one provision only for passing the scorecard to another member of the cast. That one provision is outlined under Rule 12 JUDGE: (4) where it states; {If a hunting judge scratches his dog, they are encouraged to continue judging the cast. Otherwise, they may pass the scorecard to a qualified member of the cast.}

For starters, the judges dog was not scratched so the criteria, noted in Rule 12, was not been met to be able to pass the scorecard to another member of the cast. Secondly, it is the Event Officials responsibility to assign a judge to each cast. Theres a good reason for this. One of those reasons is to make sure each cast has a qualified and unbiased judge who they trust will score all situations to the best of their abilities. That individual should also be one they trust will not take advantage of their position and wrongfully benefit their own dog when it comes to making any and all decisions during the hunt.

If we allowed assigned judges to pass the scorecard to any other member of the cast at any time, and at their discretion, then it would be a moot point for the official to assign judges to start with. We would just leave it up to the cast to decide which member should judge. Of course, that simply wouldnt work well. Thats a tried and failed system.

Thirdly, the rule does suggest that judges are encouraged to continue judging the cast even if they withdraw or scratch their dog. Personally, I wish the rule did not allow them the option to even pass the scorecard on if they withdraw or scratch other than for physical reasons. But that's the option in the rule, and we don't have the authority to enforce it any other way. However, I would hope that judges understand the intent of why they were selected and fulfill their assignment throughout the hunt regardless of anything else, if at all possible.

Finally, if a judge cannot, or would rather not, judge the cast they were assigned to, then they should address that with the event official before going to the field. In that case, the official should assign a different judge.

The cast should never take it upon themselves to decide who will judge the cast. The result of passing the scorecard to the cast member in the field, as described in the question above, is probably a good example of why that individual was not selected to judge to begin with. Thats not to say anyone not initially selected is not a qualified to judge. However, there are in fact individuals who should not be given the responsibilities, for good reason. The same is true for casts taking it upon themselves to assign an available non-hunting judge. Its a no-no. Only the Event Official can approve it.

Hunting Under the Designated Hunt Time Due to Circumstances

Q: Last weekend I was the non-hunting guide for a three-dog Grand cast. This was to be a 90-minute hunt. We had approximately a 40-minute drive to my hunting spots. One of the guys requested to stop at a gas station on the way to fill up with fuel. That was not a problem except that I was a little concerned that we didn't have a lot of time to waste in order to get the hunt in and make it back to the club before deadline.

About 30 minutes into the hunt, they called timeout after three-lining a rabbit. Unfortunately, one of the dogs could not be caught in a timely manner, although the handler did get him caught and made it back to the cast before the 30 minutes got him. We then moved down the road about three minutes to a different spot and turned loose again. The dogs all struck in on another rabbit and ran it for a while until eventually making a loss. Again, time out was called.

Getting our hunt time in and making it back was starting to look like it might be a problem, especially if the handler would have problems getting his dog caught again. While that handler was still out trying to catch his dog, the judge called the Hunt Director at the club and discussed our predicament. The Hunt Director suggested the judge poll the cast, and if it was not a problem, the cast could agree to hunt 60 minutes instead of 90 minutes because this was the only cast of Grands anyway. Otherwise, they would probably not make it back in time for any dog to be a winner. The handlers all agreed to call the hunt after 60 minutes, as suggested by the Hunt Director.

Unfortunately, the handler did not get his dog caught in the 30 minutes so he was scratched. Now both handlers agreed to hunt 60 minutes, and we went across the road and turned the other two dogs loose again before the third handler made it back to the cast. When he returned to the cast, which by this time we had finished the last ten minutes of hunt time, he questioned the call to only hunt 60 minutes instead of 90 minutes. We did have a winner with a pretty decent score, which by the way was not the judges dog.

Because the club used a Hunt Director, a panel was formed to rule on the question. The biggest debate was the fact that the Hunt Director had told the cast it would be okay, if everyone agreed. And 2) the fact that the scratched handler did not vote because he had not yet returned when his 30 minutes was up. In the end, the panel ruled to not accept the score so there was no winner. The cast winner accepted the ruling without any fuss or anything. As the guide, I had no input but Im wondering if provisions could or should have been made considering the circumstances and the fact that this cast was not competing against any other cast?

A: Rule 6 (n) clearly states; {Casts hunting over or under designated hunting time will be scratched.} Some will argue that common sense should apply and the cast should have been granted an exception given there was not another cast of Grands competing for placement that day. Some will also suggest that it was unsportsmanlike of the scratched handler to even question the matter and ultimately getting the whole cast scratched. Both are probably good for debating conversation, but in all fairness, theres probably a good argument to be made against either one.

The idea of allowing casts unwritten provisions to rules when the situation does not have a bearing effect on any other dog or cast, is probably not good. I dont see it being a good idea to open that door because of all the different scenarios that might be taken advantage of that would/could have affects in some form. As for coming down on the scratched handler for questioning the call; it may have been a more acceptable move on his part to consider the time issue at hand and simply withdraw his hard-to-handle dog earlier to give the other two hounds a better chance of getting the 90 minutes in and making it back in time. Im pretty sure if the win were accepted and it became a factor in a points race, anyone affected would appreciate that the call was questioned and rules prevailed. Either way, Rule 6 (n)clearly comes with no provisions or exceptions. The panel made the correct decision.

Back to Beagle News >