Western Rules

[Officially Retired]

Good feedback overall.
I think it is a really fine line to put forth a set of rules that is adaptable to the needs of so many complex situations that arise, and getting them so detailed that they end up not beng followed.. These rules are a good attempt at that. I will offer some commentary on each point of your feedback Jack.

I agree they're good rules overall, my friend, but I also think a "pow-wow" amongst all of us like this helps to make them even better.

#2. In general, I think your suggestion is certainly a best practice, but in reality many shows go down knowing that qualified, reputable people will be pitside that can serve as a mutually agreed upon referee. In fact, not knowing who it is before hand may in and of itself prevent foul play in some cases. I like leaving it open, because invariably if you do not, this will be a point that fanciers deviate on anyhow.

Mmm, I see your point, but foul play with a known ref can only happen if a dishonest ref was chosen. If a qualified reputable ref is chosen, then he should be immune to foul play. Also, the point that fanciers "are going to deviate anyway," begs the question, "Then why have any rules at all?" Essentially, you either follow the rules or there are no rules. Thus it is up to fanciers not to deviate, and it is up to the selected officials to have the backbone to foul-out those who do break the rules on the spot. Otherwise "rules" have no meaning.

#3. Again, certainly a best practice, but perhaps not always feasable as a "thou shalt" type of rule.

Well, but isn't it the very nature and purpose of Rules to be "Thou Shalts" and "Thou Shalt Nots"?

If not, what other purpose do rules serve?

#4. That is actually good input, with which I strongly agree. I would be in favor of amending the rule to add that.

Agreed.

#9. I know what the original Cajun Rules said in reference to a count, but in the scores of shows I have attended, nobody actually uses the rules that way. In general a full 10 count is given for the dog to go and mouth the dog. This is one of the many points that needed clarification in a revised set of rules.

I realize nobody uses it, but they should IMO. Just imagine how many contests would be stopped in time to save the dogs, if it were vigorously enforced?

And just imagine how nice it would be breeding to dogs that "won in 2:10" ... without hesitating on the scratch line for even one second

#10/11. I know what you are saying with these two, but "Draw" simply means too many different things in today's world. Two dogs that sniffed each other's asses simultaneously at the 15 minute mark could be a "draw", just like the two who went deep and then stopped. Yes, a contest took place, but not one where gameness was the hallmark of the contest. It was my intent at the time to distinguish between dogs that quit (no contest) and game dogs that under a few possible circumstances did not win or lose, but left the show with the honor of a game dog. In reality, I do not think we can change the semantics of the fancy, so I probably should modify that. At the time I wrote those I felt strongly about a distinction between quitting draws and game draws.

I disagree. I think it is pretty clear what these terms Contest/No Contest mean.

1. A "contest" in the dog world means a fight, so there has to be a fight in order for there to be a contest;
2. A "no contest" means either that no actual fight took place at all, or that the true conclusion of that fight was never achieved (e.g., cops broke it up, etc.);
3. Whether the dogs decide to end their own fight, or if their owners decide to end that fight, it still is a legitimate end to the fight.

With this clear and absolutely logical standard in mind, gameness does not have to be the hallmark of every contest. The simple fact is MOST contests are decided by at least one of the dogs running out of gameness, so if both run out of gameness it still is a legitimate end to that contest. Otherwise, if "lack of gameness" were a legit reason to call a fight a "no contest," then it could be argued that in any contest where one dog quits is therefore a "no contest" affair. This is illogical and absurd. And it is just as illogical to say that if "both" dogs quit that there was never any contest, because there simply was.

Again, with this clear and unambiguous standard in mind, if we look at the situation of two dogs sniffing each other's asses, it would be a no-contest, if that is all they ever did was sniff asses and stand there, because there would be no fight. (No Contest). It's very simple. If, however, the two dogs did fight for :15, and the contest ended with both of them sniffing each other's ass at the :15 mark, then it would be a fight that resulted in a draw at :15, the natural conclusion of which was the inglorious fact that both dogs quit and took a greater interest in each other's asses

I feel as strongly about gameness as you do, which is why I would be willing to breed to a dog that had a game draw at 2:40, while I would never breed to a dog that had a cur draw in :15 sniffing the other dog's ass

12. I agree with not abusing the system ( I saw the aforementioned show), but I think for safety of the handlers fanged dogs need to be parted. "Referee's decision is final in all matters" carries a lot of weight and perhaps should be added to ths set of rules in Rule 2. In your example, a good ref should call BS, but then again if there is no protestation from the other handler, why should he?. Certainly the other handler has an obligation to his charge to safeguard him from getting pummelled needlessly. This example you presented Jack is a matter of good and poor handling, "unfanging" was merely the vehicle that was used.

I do agree there was a lack of handling/balls on the part of Kirkland who had Texas. However, I think there was also the same lack of backbone in the ref. Yes, absolutely, it is a ref's job to call fouls when he sees them! Otherwise, what good is he? I mean, in boxing, can you imagine the idea that a ref should just be "mum" and allow all manner of fouls to go on ... "unless the other boxer says something"? The very idea of this is ludicrous! In boxing, if a ref sees a low blow, it is his job to call it! If a ref sees holding and hitting it is his job to call it! And the same is true for a ref in a dog deal. In fact, any ref that won't call a foul if he sees it has no business being a ref. The only time a handler should even have to say anything would be if a ref does not see it.

On the other hand, I personally think one dog getting fanged is just too damned bad for that dog; it part of the natural events of a contest. If you can't unfang in hold, then you gotta wait till a handle and unfang at this proper separation. Arbitrary separations, just for a fang, are wrong IMO and would be omitted if I were the one making up the rules.

13. Why? nothing means nothing unless it is permitted. I see what you mean about a third party gambler though. Perhaps getting rid of the foul piece altogether helps, but then again so does adding "referee's decision is final in all matters". Clearly judgement needs to be utlilized about what the intent of an unauthorized something coming into or leaving the pit.

Well, that is why I sought clarification in this, was precisely to call foul only if it is one of the participants or his second, and leave the other instances of crowd control out of the "foul-out" criteria.

In the end, I agree that all decisions of the ref are final, which is why it is so important to choose a ref who 1) is honest, 2) has good judgment, and 3) has the backbone to enforce the rules without any deviation or exception.

Overall, I feel like these rules go a long ways to clarify things not covered in the several sets of rules that are called "Cajun", and also promote spotsmanship and fair play beyond any others I have seen.

I agree, they're a great set of rules, and they are providing for real clarification on "gray areas" that have always troubled a lot of folks.

Cheers,

Jack

[Officially Retired]

#2. Agree with JAck
#3. Agree with Jack
#4. Bite should be inspected by the match BEFORE the show by the Ref with opposing party present. If opposing partner sees something fishy (filed teeth, fake teeth, etc, then he should tell the refeeree right there before the show. The opposing party can't see the fake tooth, then do the show, and when he sees he's not going to win, decide to call him on it.
#9. I agree with TFX
#10. I agree with Jack
#11. I agreee with JAck
#12. I say that the handler should try to UNFANG twice while in hold. If not, the referee can try to unfang, if the referee cannot do it in hold, then seperated.
#13. A referee to give a warning for something MINOR. I liked the way M.A.D. and B.Bailey would say before a show, "We're gonna let the dogs decide this one. No minor Bulllshit foul is gonna save anyone."
Also, The original Macho would shoot across so strong and fast that he was literally close to flying out of the box with the other animal and handler. In that case, if he had made contact with the other dog, you would toss them both back in the box.

We agree on everything, Evo, except that I do not believe one dog being fanged is a legit excuse to stop the contest; it is a natural event that unfolded that is just too damned bad for that dog. If any unfanging is to occur, then it needs to happen on a legit handle (after a called turn). No dog with the advantage, should have to be subjected to a false separation and "re-start" just because his opponent was fanged.

The reality of fanging is one of the reasons I avoid breeding to "lippy" dogs

Jack

[evolutionkennels]

I don't like em too lippy either. The fanging happens sometimes. I like to see the handler try to unfang in hold a few times, after a few times, the ref to try in hold, only after the handler tries, and the ref tries in hold, and the OPPONENT agrees, then seperate them a few feet apart

[TFX]

A little alum on the inside of the lips really helps with the fanging. We were in a show with Bolio's owner and I forgot the alum. We ended up fanged several times. We fell behind as a result and picked up a game dog. We found out 10 hours after the show that the dog had also been fanged on the bottom on both sides. It was the first time I had ever seen one fanged on the bottom. Check for it in the corner fellas, it could cost you a show.

[Officially Retired]

Good idea about the alum!

[evolutionkennels]

I've heard of Witchhazel as well

[STONEWALL]

With the exeption of rule #9 I agree with Evolution's thoughts on the rules. Since as long as I can remember people have modified this part of the Cajun rules and used the 10 count at the release on the scratches, and I've seen good game dogs counted out even though they were scratching. If a severly injured dogs is dragging or pushing itself across without hesitation how can we in good concious count it out?

[Officially Retired]

With the exeption of rule #9 I agree with Evolution's thoughts on the rules. Since as long as I can remember people have modified this part of the Cajun rules and used the 10 count at the release on the scratches, and I've seen good game dogs counted out even though they were scratching.

I think there is some confusion as to what the original Cajun Rules meant. Yes, exactly, an injured dog has 10 seconds to complete its scratch ... BUT if a dog hesitates, for even 1 second, it's over.

The same is true in boxing. If a man gets knocked down and if, once, he shakes his head "no" to the ref, the fight's over. But if he's trying to get up off the floor, and still wants to fight, then he's got 10 seconds to do so.

And so it is with the dogs. In other words, the GAME dog has 10 seconds to haul/drag/roll his ass over there ... but the SECOND a dog makes a cur hesitation, the fight's over.

If a severly injured dogs is dragging or pushing itself across without hesitation how can we in good concious count it out?

It's as easy to count out a game dog who couldn't get there in 10-seconds, as it is to count-out a game man who can't get up off the floor in 10-seconds.

In fact, that is the entire point of clarifying #9: the 10-count was originally for game dogs trying to get there; the one-count was for any sign of quitting.

Another way to look at it is, if a dog is injured so badly that he cannot travel a few feet to complete his game scratch, then how can we in good conscience let him continue? That would be as unconscionable as letting a man who's been beaten half to death in the boxing ring, and who's taking a 10-count on the floor, "still continue" because he staggered-up at the count of 15.

I mean, unless you want every game dog to die, and every beaten boxer to be pummeled to death, there has to be a "10-count" ... within which time a game fighter can still fight ... but after which time it's over ... precisely because any fighter who can't continue with those 10-seconds "has had enough" (physically, if not mentally).

Jack

[R2L]

good post Jack, i agree 100 %. everybody knows those 10 seconds don't make a dog cur or game. but when a game one doesn't make it his opponent apparently did a good job

very nice thread, if only a new set of standard rules would be made

[Officially Retired]

Exactly right, R2L.

When one fighter is rendered so injured that he cannot get back over to his opponent within 10 seconds, it is only good sportsmanship to acknowledge the work of the winning fighter, and protect the losing fighter from further harm, tipping our hat to his gameness if he is still willing to continue.

A fight becomes something other than a "good sport" when the lives of the fighters are no longer valued or protected

Jack