Infallability and a view from both sides of the fence

Click her to read the complete article 102 – March, 2013

By Gay Dunlap

It’s a rather interesting subject, infallibility…or the lack of it. Unfortunately antonyms for infallibility include some rather contemptuous words…error-prone, undependable, unreliable, uncertain and weak, to list a few. Definitions of infallible, on the other hand, are quite respectful. The infallible person would be incapable of error and not liable to mislead, deceive or disappoint. More often than not I think the typical exhibitor forgets that most judges have spent years in their shoes…and, in fact, many still do. Commenting on the latter, a respected professional handler recently expressed the opinion that he felt it a good thing when judges continue to exhibit since they seem more sensitive to the plight of the exhibitor, especially the owner-handler. Countless years away from actual exhibiting, he went on to say, need not, but sometimes does, lead a judge to appear somewhat callous and insensitive. Exhibitor/judge or not, some of us can exude such an extreme air of infallibility as to appear arrogant and pompous.

It is a very fine line, giving the impression of infallibility without also appearing smug and unapproachable. At the same time, appearing indecisive or uncertain is definitely not the other side of this coin. So how do we proceed? As hard as we try to do the right thing, feeling confident that our choices are the right ones, the very nature of the sport is one of subjectivity. Most of us understand that there is actually no right or wrong in the judging process but rather simply a matter of our own personal interpretation of the standard for the breed being judged. Can we display both infallibility and sensitivity at the same time?

However confident a judge may appear as he/she goes about decision-making, the exhibitor that interprets this as infallibility may well be mistaken. On more than one occasion have judges shared their thoughts following an assignment with such comments as, “You know, I could have put up the other dog just as easily,” or “On another day, my BOS might easily be my Best Of Breed.” Sometimes the competition is so tight that this line of thinking is totally accurate and indeed quite appropriate. It is important, therefore, that exhibitors understand this and also be aware that such admissions are, for obvious reasons, rarely if ever shared with them. Therefore, it is the wise exhibitor that does not jump to conclusions. Unless known to be a fact, never should the exhibitor assume that a judge dislikes his dog based upon a prior decision. It is also the wise exhibitor that gives a judge, at the very least, another chance.

The young handler arriving at a show and taking one look at the judge suddenly recognized her as one that had “dumped” his dog at a prior event. So, he turned around and drove home. Nothing was gained by doing this and much was lost. There was the expense of the entry fee, the wasted fuel, the loss of an opportunity to show his dog and conceivably the loss of gaining a few admirers sitting ringside that might not see things the same way as the judge. What if the competition failed to make a good showing? Finally, who is to know for certain if the judge might have a change of heart or perceive the young man’s dog in a different light? The exhibitor’s decision to leave also represented a lost opportunity to polish up on his handling technique and to use the in-ring experience as a practice session for the dog. Our frequently heard claims that the sport is about more that just the win is not simply lip service.

A week or so ago I had an epiphany of sorts when I came upon a website list in which exhibitors share their personal opinions of judges. I have to admit that I was somewhat taken aback by the realization that, for the most part, exhibitors seem to care more about whether the judge was nice than whether or not he/she was competent. I don’t intend to imply that nicety trumps competency or proficiency, but rather to point out that kindness and a pleasant demeanor on the part of the judge counts for a lot in the eyes of many exhibitors. It also seems they are most apt to show again to the same judge, even if they lost, so long as the judge was found to be pleasant, kind and demonstrated a gentle hand with their puppies.

The neophyte exhibitor who appears nervous or anxious should be able to count on a sensitive and thoughtful judge taking note of this. Such a judge will make a conscious effort to put this exhibitor at ease and help him/her to feel more relaxed. The sensitive thoughtful judge will also take this into consideration when making class placements. Such behavior on the part of the judge is definitely looked upon with favor.

So it would seem that the art of being nice quite often plays a definitive role in an exhibitors’ decision to enter the ring under the same judge, in spite of a prior “dumping.” But in truth magnanimity rules on both sides of the fence for both judge and exhibitor. In other words, “what’s sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander,” as the saying goes. And generally, what goes around comes around. Just as exhibitors appreciate judges that are kind, so don’t judges appreciate the exhibitor that displays a pleasant demeanor. The surly exhibitor, the exhibitor that snatches a third place ribbon or grumbles on the way out of the ring will probably be remembered, and not in a nice way. More than once has a judge commented that when the chips are down and one is faced with two dogs of comparable quality, the unpleasant handler will definitely suffer the consequences of his objectionable behavior. An obvious exception to this is the judge that may too easily fall prey to an exhibitor’s intimidation tactics…and we all know it happens. Intimidation also occurs between exhibitors and judge to judge.

The recent posting on a social network spoke of intimidation, threats and bullying at a dog show on the part of some exhibitors, calling it “very unsportsmanlike.” There was the instance of a highly respected judge being publicly called to task by another judge who disagreed with her breed choice. There was also the occasion late last year where an entire entry pulled at the last minute in order to insure that a certain special would not garner the points toward his quest for being ranked #1 in his breed for 2012. Taking all of this into account, it is a sad state that requires broad shoulders as a prerequisite to playing the game –?judge and exhibitor alike.

This has been but a brief look at both sides of the process of showing and judging in terms of the manner in which many might view it emotionally. Few of us are so callous that we fail to acknowledge the emotional vulnerability that we all, in one way or another, share. Some years ago I found a phrase that spoke to me and I try very hard to live by it (though sometimes I fail miserably!) It says, “Always think of what you’re saying (or doing) before you say (or do) what you are thinking.” If we could only just be nice to one another!

Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=18720

Posted by admin on Apr 1 2013. Filed under Current Articles, Featured. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.