New AKC Agility regs announced
The new AKC agility regs are in the December minutes:
http://www.akc.org/pdfs/about/board_minutes/1205.pdf Summary on page 6, actual changes start page 9. Lots of small changes, a few big ones--a new 26" height which will have a 6'3" aframe, new weave specs which will make a lot of current weave poles illegal, and a break for small dogs--the cutoff for 8" has been raised to 11". Dogs now have to be 15 months old to compete. And a new class! FAST (Fifteen and Send Time) involves an opening and a gamble. I've read the rules twice and don't really understand them, but I'm sure once we get some course examples up that will help. |
New AKC Agility regs announced
Robin Nuttall said in
rec.pets.dogs.activities: Lots of small changes, a few big ones--a new 26" height which will have a 6'3" aframe, new weave specs which will make a lot of current weave poles illegal, and a break for small dogs--the cutoff for 8" has been raised to 11". Dogs now have to be 15 months old to compete. Pretty well thought out changes, I think, and they don't seem to require a lot of expense on the part of the club for equipment changes. New (longer) weave poles and 5' bars for the spread jumps are all inexpensive PVC. I think they should have gone to 18 months, though any number is arbitrary what with the wide range of dogs competing - but at least 18 months would have made them consistent with every other agility organisation in North America. The big change (to me, though I don't compete in the AKC), is mandating that the teeter be slatless. I've never seen a reason for slats on the teeter or dogwalk. And a new class! FAST (Fifteen and Send Time) involves an opening and a gamble. I've read the rules twice and don't really understand them, but I'm sure once we get some course examples up that will help. If I'm reading the rules correctly, FAST sounds an awful lot like AAC's gamble. AAC has "mini gambles" which are optional in the opening (ie: you can do them away for double point value or do them close for regular obstacle value), similar to FAST's "send bonus". Instead of a closing gamble, FAST adds a time fault from end of SCT to finish point (similar strategy to AAC's gamble whereby the handler wants to be close to the final gamble when the horn sounds). It sounds like a fun game. -- --Matt. Rocky's a Dog. |
New AKC Agility regs announced
Matt wrote: Pretty well thought out changes, I think, and they don't seem to require a lot of expense on the part of the club for equipment changes. New (longer) weave poles and 5' bars for the spread jumps are all inexpensive PVC. Heh. Obviously, you missed the change to the weave pole requirements which says that the supports must be on the opposite side of the dog's path; there's a fair amount of angst going on on the Agiledogs list about having to buy new poles to comply with that one. And speaking of weave poles, I think we've got an agility first both with that and with the requirement that pole bases now be done in a nonslip finish - the AKC is making a safety change mandatory BEFORE NADAC got around to it. ;-D And yes, Robin, you BET I've posted to the NADAC list about the non-slip issue...I'm waiting with interest, to see if my post makes it to the list. I don't care much if it does, since my actual intent was to tweak Sharon. ;-D Weave bases are very much a pet peeve of mine... especially since just prior to the discussion getting started on Agiledogs, I watched video of an agility trial in early Nov, and in one place you can CLEARLY see Rocsi's hind feet slip on the pole bases. |
New AKC Agility regs announced
"cimawr" said in rec.pets.dogs.activities:
Pretty well thought out changes, I think, and they don't seem to require a lot of expense on the part of the club for equipment changes. New (longer) weave poles and 5' bars for the spread jumps are all inexpensive PVC. Heh. Obviously, you missed the change to the weave pole requirements 38 pages of pdf? Hah! Of course I missed lots of stuff. which says that the supports must be on the opposite side of the dog's path; there's a fair amount of angst going on on the Agiledogs list about having to buy new poles to comply with that one. When course building, I've always set it up that way. I've never enountered a set of weaves which required dogs to enter and exit over bases - most weave bases have moveable stabilizers. Rethinking, I really like the very secure weave bases that have non-movable stabalizers out to *both* sides which don't often require spiking. I suppose that this is what the AKC is getting rid of. -- --Matt. Rocky's a Dog. |
New AKC Agility regs announced
"Robin Nuttall" wrote in message news:2sTpf.418072$084.216667@attbi_s22... The new AKC agility regs are in the December minutes: http://www.akc.org/pdfs/about/board_minutes/1205.pdf Summary on page 6, actual changes start page 9. Lots of small changes, a few big ones--a new 26" height which will have a 6'3" aframe, new weave specs which will make a lot of current weave poles illegal, and a break for small dogs--the cutoff for 8" has been raised to 11". Dogs now have to be 15 months old to compete. Let the whining commence. I can hear the 8" and 12" gang already - the "old" 8" are so spoiled by having half a dozen dogs in their height and getting placements so easily, and the 12" are now going to have to make do with 40 MACH points per run instead of 50... The Agiledogs list is already afire. I'm personally quite happy with the adjustments - I wouldn't have minded an optional no-table, but at least a cumulative count should speed things up a bit. The new age limit is a fair compromise, and I just don't see that the SCT increase is all that huge, so I really have no complaints. And a new class! FAST (Fifteen and Send Time) involves an opening and a gamble. I've read the rules twice and don't really understand them, but I'm sure once we get some course examples up that will help. I get to play this game over New Years weekend! We'll see how it goes but I think it looks fun, and I have to admit I would really enjoy getting a MF title on my dogs... Wylie is one bad MF already... Christy |
New AKC Agility regs announced
"Christy" wrote: Let the whining commence. I can hear the 8" and 12" gang already - the "old" 8" are so spoiled by having half a dozen dogs in their height and getting placements so easily, and the 12" are now going to have to make do with 40 MACH points per run instead of 50... Not to mention that the SCTs have been tightened up for all heights, but apparently by significantly more for the 12" dogs. |
New AKC Agility regs announced
Rocky wrote:
Robin Nuttall said in rec.pets.dogs.activities: Lots of small changes, a few big ones--a new 26" height which will have a 6'3" aframe, new weave specs which will make a lot of current weave poles illegal, and a break for small dogs--the cutoff for 8" has been raised to 11". Dogs now have to be 15 months old to compete. Pretty well thought out changes, I think, and they don't seem to require a lot of expense on the part of the club for equipment changes. New (longer) weave poles and 5' bars for the spread jumps are all inexpensive PVC. Yes, except I'd say 95% of the weaves here have crossbar supports, and they will need to now have offset leg supports. I paid $500 for my Max200 weaves four years ago, and a friend of mine just bought an identical set--lord knows how much she paid. Now relegated to practice. Plus, some of our jumps aren't tall enough or made so that you can add a 26" height. So we may have significant jump expense. The difference may make us reconsider doing a 2-ring 2-judge trial next year, I am not sure we can afford to make all those changes and fill 2 rings with equipment. I'm not saying they're bad changes, but they will take a chunk of money. The big change (to me, though I don't compete in the AKC), is mandating that the teeter be slatless. I've never seen a reason for slats on the teeter or dogwalk. They'll almost certainly stay on the DW, and I have only seen one slatted teeter in competition in 5 years, they were already extremely rare. The elimination of the 8' dogwalk is causing some consernation for those who run Novice-only trials in smaller spaces. But again, most clubs use 12' anyway. If I'm reading the rules correctly, FAST sounds an awful lot like AAC's gamble. AAC has "mini gambles" which are optional in the opening (ie: you can do them away for double point value or do them close for regular obstacle value), similar to FAST's "send bonus". Instead of a closing gamble, FAST adds a time fault from end of SCT to finish point (similar strategy to AAC's gamble whereby the handler wants to be close to the final gamble when the horn sounds). It sounds like a fun game. I think it will be fun. You *must* complete the gamble portion in order to Q, but you can do it at any time. If you flub, you can't try it again. And you have to do at least 15 obstacles, all of which are assigned a point value. I don't understand it completely yet but I'm looking forward to it. |
New AKC Agility regs announced
cimawr wrote:
And yes, Robin, you BET I've posted to the NADAC list about the non-slip issue...I'm waiting with interest, to see if my post makes it to the list. I don't care much if it does, since my actual intent was to tweak Sharon. ;-D Oh you meanie! I do think the nonslip and the offset stabilizer bars are important, but it is going to hurt our club a bit. We just had our first AKC trial, kept it small and worked a lot more on making people happy than making money, so we didn't clear much. We're a little club, and we want to spend some of that money on some of our other activities. So we are really going to have to have some discussion about what to do about financing the changes. Weave bases are very much a pet peeve of mine... especially since just prior to the discussion getting started on Agiledogs, I watched video of an agility trial in early Nov, and in one place you can CLEARLY see Rocsi's hind feet slip on the pole bases. Another thing, the AKC is now suggesting weaves be 22" in spacing, it was 21" before. I think 22" should be mandatory across all venues. Still tight enough to not penalize the little dogs, but big enough to make a huge difference to the big dogs. |
New AKC Agility regs announced
Christy wrote:
Let the whining commence. I can hear the 8" and 12" gang already - the "old" 8" are so spoiled by having half a dozen dogs in their height and getting placements so easily, and the 12" are now going to have to make do with 40 MACH points per run instead of 50... The Agiledogs list is already afire. Not really, I've been pleasantly shocked at how many people are supporting the change in times for the 12" dogs. It needed to happen. I'm personally quite happy with the adjustments - I wouldn't have minded an optional no-table, but at least a cumulative count should speed things up a bit. The new age limit is a fair compromise, and I just don't see that the SCT increase is all that huge, so I really have no complaints. I like pretty much everything they did, but wish they'd made it so that 24" dogs can compete fairly at the Nationals... I get to play this game over New Years weekend! We'll see how it goes but I think it looks fun, and I have to admit I would really enjoy getting a MF title on my dogs... Wylie is one bad MF already... If it's going to be allowed as a non-regular class, I'd like to put it in our trial for next December. |
New AKC Agility regs announced
"Robin Nuttall" wrote in message news:K53qf.641764$_o.244791@attbi_s71... Not really, I've been pleasantly shocked at how many people are supporting the change in times for the 12" dogs. It needed to happen. Well... most of those people posting aren't 12" people. And maybe its just my area, but we have a lot of vocal competitors in the small dog classes who aren't going to be happy. However, I think its about time - I've had runs with my 16" dog that I got 12 MACH points or so while the winner of the 12" class got 40, and their times were the same. Granted, I didn't get a multiplier, but still.. that's a big difference. It hasn't affected me specifically, because I'm not trying for the top Shelties list, but you can see the disparity when the top dogs are all in the 12" class because they get soooo many more MACH points for the equivalent run. But anyway, I meant that the list is afire discussing all the changes - I was unclear. If it's going to be allowed as a non-regular class, I'd like to put it in our trial for next December. I assume it will be allowed, or it wouldn't be offered, but I guess we'll see! Christy |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0 (Unauthorized Upgrade)
Dogbanter.com