FourPaw Sports Center Judges’ Clinic

Leave a comment

Please join us in welcoming these new TDAA judges, who passed the grueling testing at Four Paw Sports Center in Lynnwood, WA:

Jill Reade, Lynnwood
Linda Larson, Poulsbo, WA
Susan Cole, Stanwood, WA

And these judges at Four Paw Sports Center survived the recertification testing:

Robin Carlstrom, Lynwood, WA
Alisa Sibley, Everett, WA
Kathy Swan, Tacoma, WA
Melissa Wallace, Grand Bay, AL

FourPawJudges01

The next scheduled TDAA Judges Clinic:

CO

Oct  12 – 13 , 2017  TDAA judges clinic
Rocky Mountain Agility Team
Arvada, CO
Presenter:  Bud Houston (judge of record)
Contact:  Brenda Douglass at brdouglass@comcast.net
Judge applicants may run dogs at the trial!
Clinic Application

Oct  14 – 15 , 2017  TDAA trial T17009
Rocky Mountain Agility Team
Arvada, CO Judge:  Bud Houston (judge of record)
Contact:  Brenda Douglass at brdouglass@comcast.net
Rubber mats over dirt. Four standard classes and 4 games + add-ons when possible. Premium

Regards,
Bud Houston

2018 Petit Prix Tournament Rules Published

The tournament rules for the 2018 TDAA Petit Prix have been published!

You can view those tournament rules here: http://wp.me/P18bml-64

BLOG1254 Home

Questions comments & impassioned speeches to Bud Houston Houston.Bud@gmail.com. Visit our web store: www.dogagility.org/newstore. You’ll find in the web store The Book of Agility Games, a comprehensive reference to all manner of agility games played for competition and fun around the world.

Advertisements

Game Review for a Judging Candidate

Leave a comment

The following is the review of a game from course design homework for the up and coming judges’ clinic at Four Paw Sports Center in Lynnwood, Washington. It is useful to see what happens in the review process. And as this the review makes fairly typical kinds of observations, it is worth sharing to a broader audience (notably, TDAA judges!)

The judge candidates name has been removed to spare any possible embarrassment. Though there’s nothing terribly embarrassing in the game submitted for review. I’ve always believed that experience is earned the hard way… and there is no real crime in being novice. We all started there, after all.

Cha-Cha

This is a review of the game Cha Cha that was invented by TDAA judge Jeffrey Boyer.

While it is a “dog’s choice game”… the choice has provisions, as you’ll see from the briefing below.

The judge submitted this course for the review:

BLOG1248_01

 

Reviewer’s comments:

* What you did in this design is create a flow that in itself anticipates the requirements for the game. Consequently the path is a “no brainer” for the handler. I contend that the typical TDAA game player is quite clever and doesn’t have to be spoon fed.

* The course-map is missing both start and finish lines, and the briefing provides no advice as to how time starts and finishes. Indeed, the briefing should be quite specific about time, because the exhibitor sitting in his chair outside the ring will want to know how long they’ll have to solve the riddle of the course.

* You’ve left a jump at the bottom of the field, about 3’ off the front ring barrier. A jump approaching any side of the ring should have a minimum of 10’ for both the dismount and the approach. This jump provides neither (though it could be rotated 90° and so wouldn’t be an issue).

* The briefing does not stipulate whether the tire is a jump… or if it falls into the “anything but a jump” side of the ledger.

* The qualifying criteria stipulates how many points must be earned for each level… but fails to mention the point value of each obstacle. This deserves mention in the briefing. [Frankly, I prefer to write the briefing in Word, and then import the course map into the Word document. That gives me access to spell-checking and formatting.]

* The briefing should make an explicit statement of the Scoring Basis. For example:

In the Tillman variation the game is scored by obstacle point values. And so the scoring basis is Points-Then-Time, rather than “Bars”-Then-Time. In the first use of this variation TDAA judge Vickie Tillman set obstacle values as: “Contact obstacles-3 pts; Tunnel & tire)-2 pts; Jumps 1 pt.” Qualifying criteria was then established as:

  • Games 1 – 16
  • Games 2 – 24
  • Games 3 – 32

If you use the Tillman variation, you will have to call out point values, rather than “Slow” and “Cha”.

* Frankly, you missed an opportunity here to nearly perfect-nest this game with the Superior standard course that is played immediately after. Your Superior standard course:

BLOG1248_02

 

* I will take the liberty to show you what the game might look like using this Superior standard course as the basis for nesting:

BLOG1248_03

 

* The numbers on this course map are numbers that I provided. After I threw away the numbers from your Superior course, I sat down to strategize how I might direct my dog to fulfill the Cha-Cha rhythm of obstacle performance. While some of the approaches to contact obstacles are problematic, this numbered path pretty much solves the qualifying criteria for any level.

* I’ve expanded the briefing for Cha-Cha here:

Briefing [Tillman variation]

The objective is for the team to accumulate as many bars of Cha-Cha steps as they can in the time allotted. A Cha-Cha bar consists of any two obstacles other than jumps followed by three jumps. For example, a bar might be a contact obstacle, a tunnel (or the tire), and then three jumps. Or it might be two tunnel performances followed by three jumps. For each successful bar, the team will earn one point. The game is scored points, then time. Time is for tie-breaking only.

Bar jumps may be used as often as desired. Other obstacles may be used only twice for credit. Obstacles other than bar jumps may be taken back-to-back, as long as this is done safely. Bar jumps may not be taken back-to-back. The first obstacle to be taken at the start of any run may not be a contact obstacle.

The following faults will be in effect:

  • Dropped bars (dropped bars are not reset and the jump is out of play)
  • Missed contacts
  • Incomplete weave pole performance
  • Back-to-back performance of a bar jump
  • Taking an obstacle more than twice (except for bar jumps)
  • Taking a contact obstacle as the first obstacle in the run
  • Incorrect number of “slow” or “quick” steps since the last successful bar

The judge will call point values for each successful obstacle performance: Of the slow obstacles: 3 for contacts & weave poles; 2 for tunnels and tire. Of the fast obstacles: 1 point for jumps.

In the event of a fault, the judge will call “fault,” and the team must begin a new bar; any points earned for an incomplete bar are lost. Counting of a bar will begin only once the “slow” steps are started.

Time begins when the dog first crosses the Start line. The timer will blow the whistle at the end of point accumulation time, at which point the handler must direct the dog across the finish line or to the finish obstacle to stop the clock. In TDAA, small dogs (4/8) will have 60 seconds to accumulate points, and big dogs (12/16) will have 55 seconds.

***

To the prospective TDAA: I hope the review of this game was a good resource for learning. The most important lesson to be learned from this exercise, is how to nearly “perfect-nest” a game with a standard course.

The completeness of the briefing is important. When you submit games for review the briefing should be exactly what you intend to present to exhibitors. This allows your course reviewer to ascertain whether you understand completely how the game might be played.

May judges will include specific briefings to ring personnel like the time-keeper and scribe and, of course, the scorekeeping table. The Time-keeper, for example should have specific instructions to blow the whistle to indicate the end of time. And the scorekeeping table needs to know little details like…how points that begin a faulted bar are lost, and a new bar started.

I look forward to working with you at the Four Paw Judges’ clinic.

BLOG1244 TDAA

Questions comments & impassioned speeches to Bud Houston Houston.Bud@gmail.com. Visit our web store: www.dogagility.org/newstore. You’ll find in the web store The Book of Agility Games, a comprehensive reference to all manner of agility games played for competition and fun around the world.

Leave a comment

We are pleased to share pictures of our 2017 Petit Prix Champions. Pictures were a teeny bit late getting to us.

Congratulations to the 2017 TDAA Petit Prix Champions! This was an intense competition with ample drama and amazing moments.

4″ Division

BLOG1243_02

Teresa Kolean and TNAC TACH3 Boondock’s Chocolate Twist on Fire TAM4 TMAG4, call name Flaire. Flaire earned 4″ Champion and High in Trial.

Not pictured in the 4″ Division: Michelle Ivie and Moose, a Chihuahua, 2nd place; Melissa Wallace and Starry, a Chihuahua, 3rd place; and Darrah Ricard and Kiarra, Miniature Dachshund in 4th place.

8″ Division

BLOG1243_03

Donette Belknap and TNAC TACh3 Fiona TAM6 TMAG10, a Chihuahua and 8″ Champion.

Not pictured in the 4″ Division: Michelle Ivie and Moose, a Chihuahua, 2nd place; Melissa Wallace and Starry, a Chihuahua, 3rd place; and Darrah Ricard and Kiarra, Miniature Dachshund in 4th place.

12″ Division

BLOG1243_06

Corlane Eacott and TMAC TACh3 Tova TAM5 TMAG7, an All American and 12″ Champion.

Not pictured:  Beth Moline and Chex, an All American (2nd place); Donette Belknap and Tira, an Icelandic Sheepdog (3rd place); Marsha Houston and Cedar, an All American (4th place); Susan Cole and Domino, a Rat Terrier (5th place dog).

16″ Division

BLOG1243_04

Sandra Law and Furgus, a Shetland Sheepdog (2nd place); Gayle Irani and Nico, an Italian Greyhound 16″ Champion (1st place) and Enzo, an Italian Greyhound also handled by Gayle Irani (3rd place).

Event Results

Course maps and top 20 dogs in each jump height have been reported in the TDAA blog:
2017 TDAA Petit Prix Results

The winner of each event is the top dog in that event, without respect to jump height, and earns special recognition which we call the Haymitch Award. This might also be called the “Flash in the Pan” Award. The winner of a single event might not wind up in the final placement of the TDAA Petit Prix tournament. But recognition is certainly deserved.

Our Haymitch Award winners in 2017 were:

Standard 1: From the 4″ Division, Flaire, a Miniature Dachshund handled by Teresa Kolean.

Puppy Cannon: From the 4″ Division, Flaire, a Miniature Dachshund handled by Teresa Kolean.

Heinz 57: From the 12″ Division, London, a Shetland Sheepdog handled by Jane Guidinger.

Time to Beat: From the 12″ Division, Chex, an All American handled by Beth Moline.

FAST: From the 8″ Division, Seren, a Pembroke Welsh Corgi, handled by Donette Belknap.

What’s My Line: Chex, an All American handled by Beth Moline.

Standard 2: From the 4″ Division, Flaire, a Miniature Dachshund handled by Teresa Kolean.

Tunnel Vision: From the 8″ Division, Seren, a Pembroke Welsh Corgi handled by Donette Belknap.

Standard 3: From the 4″ Division, Flaire, a Miniature Dachshund handled by Teresa Kolean.

Jumpers: From the 8″ Division, Seren, a Pembroke Welsh Corgi, handled by Donette Belknap.

Top 40 Dogs Overall

BLOG1234_05

BLOG1243 TDAA

Questions comments & impassioned speeches to Bud Houston Houston.Bud@gmail.com. Visit our web store: www.dogagility.org/newstore. You’ll find in the web store The Book of Agility Games, a comprehensive reference to all manner of agility games played for competition and fun around the world.2017 TDAA Petit Prix Results

2017 TDAA Petit Prix Results

Leave a comment

The 2017 Petit Prix in Farmington, Utah was both dramatic and competitive. Below we will share with you the results as they unfolded over the weekend.

The Petit Prix is scored dog against dog without regard to jump height so that the performance of each dog is measured against the field. Smaller dogs get the benefit of a handicap intended to level the competition. The first place dog earns 100 points, the second place dog 99 points, and so forth, deducting a single point for each placement. These earned placement points summarize a dog’s overall performance against the field.

Note that the dog winning each competition earns a special distinction: The Haymitch “Flash in the Pan Award,” as it is possible for a dog that wins a single competition may not register in the final placements of the tournament. It is worthwhile to acknowledge the dog’s accomplishment in the national tournament.

Friday Results

The day began with a Standard run. Standard courses at a Petit Prix are judged under Superior rules for performance. A Beginner or Intermediate dog earning a qualifying score at the Petit Prix will have that “Q” recorded at his appropriate level of competition.

Standard 1

BLOG1237_01

On this course the judge specified no obedience position on the table and so gave the dog a count of 5 simply for being on the table. The course was smooth and flowing an presented subtle challenges to a dog moving at full speed.

The top 20 performances are summarized below:

BLOG1237_02

Puppy Cannon

BLOG1237_03

The objective of Puppy Cannon! is for the dog to do three of the numbered sequences shown on the course map. The sequences can be taken in any order and are bidirectional. The dog starts on the table and must begin with the pair of pipe tunnels (the Puppy Cannon) before the performance of each of the three sequences.

After the final sequence the dog can go directly to the table to stop time or transition through the puppy cannon (without penalty) to get to the table.

Scoring

Puppy Cannon! is scored Time, Plus Faults. The dog with the lowest score wins.

The top 20 performances are summarized below:

BLOG1237_04

As you can see… Flair, a Miniature Dachshund handled by Teresa Kolean has made an early statement, managing a win in both of the Friday morning competitions.

Heinz 57

BLOG1237_23

The purpose of Heinz 57 is to score 57 points: 1 pt for Jumps; 2 for pipe tunnels; 3 for contact obstacles; 5 for weave poles; the tire doubles all points. If a dog commits to any obstacle with four paws he is required to complete the performance that obstacle. Obstacles, including the Tire, can be taken twice for points; and never back-to-back; (the dog earns no points for second performance).

Small dogs will have 60 seconds; big dogs 56 seconds. The table ends scoring and stops time. The table becomes live after the dog has earned one point (the Mr. Banks rule).

Scoring 
 Heinz 57 is scored Points, Then Time ER2. Any amount over or under 57 will be subtracted from 57 to determine the dog’ s final score. Time is a tie-breaker only.

Qualifying: All levels must score 57 points

Design Notation: The traditional doubling obstacle for Heinz 57 has been the collapsed tunnel. As we no longer use the collapsed tunnel in competition the judge has an option of designating another obstacle for that task.

Note too that the finish is complicated by the doubling obstacle being placed towards the back of the ring making the accumulation of finishing points more complicated that a “one and done” proposition.

We will amend the Book of Agility Games to include “Russell’s Rules” for Heinz 57:

  1. Noting the prohibition against taking an obstacle back-to-back or performing an obstacle more than twice, the judge stipulated that the final performance of an obstacle performed back-to-back or thrice performed would score “zero” points; (consequently the handler might intentionally perform zero valued obstacles for flow and position.)
  2. Noting the requirement that commits to the performance of an obstacle with four paws, the judge stipulated that scoring will cease until the dog performs that obstacle.

The top 20 performances are summarized below:

BLOG1237_05

Time to Beat

BLOG1237_06

Time to Beat is a numbered course with weave poles and two contact obstacle performances. The contact obstacles on course may be the A-Frame and/or Teeter. If both obstacle are on course each must be performed once. If only one contact is on course it must be completed twice. Refusals and run outs are not faulted.

The object of the game is to complete the course without fault before reaching maximum course time.

Scoring: Time to Beat is scored Faults, Then Time. .

Qualifying Course Time: Tall dogs 50 seconds. Small dogs 55 Seconds

We will share the top 20 performance results below:

BLOG1237_07

Cumulative Results End of Day Friday

BLOG1237_08

Saturday Results

The competition Saturday started with the Fifteen and Send Time class (FAST). This is a game of strategy and distance popularized in another agility organization.

FAST

BLOG1237_09

FAST is a strategy game consisting of two elements, the body and send. The body contains randomly placed obstacles with point values of 1 to 10. The Send is a distance element that must be completed at the handler’s discretion without fault while the handler remains behind a containment line. If successfully completed the send is worth 20 points plus the value of the obstacles included in send. The Send may be taken at any time.

To qualify the dog must complete the send and earn a minimum number of points within the time allowed. Time starts when the dog crosses the start line and stops when the dog takes the finish obstacle. The finish obstacle is live at all times. Horn will sound at the end of the allowed course time and point accumulation stops. One point will be deducted from the total accumulation for each second over the allowed time.

FAST is scored points, then time. ER2. Points to qualify: 60

Course time: Tall dogs 35 seconds, Small 38 seconds

The top 20 performances are summarized below:

BLOG1237_10

What’s My Line

BLOG1237_11

The objective of What’ s My Line is to perform all of the obstacles on the field without repeating or omitting any. The dog earns one point for each obstacle performed successfully. Small dogs will have 68 seconds; big dogs 63 seconds.

If an obstacle is performed twice, the dog will lose a point for the performance. If an obstacle is faulted, the team will receive no point for that obstacle. Further, the obstacle will be counted as used/completed.

If a dog commits to an obstacle with all four-paws he is required to finish the performance of that obstacle. Refusals will not be faulted.

Scoring

What’s My Line is scored Points, Then Time. ER2. Time is a tie-breaker only.

The top 20 performances are summarized below:

BLOG1237_12

Standard 2

BLOG1237_13

The top 20 performances are summarized below:

BLOG1237_14

Tunnel Vision

BLOG1237_15

Tunnel Vision is a numbered course with these unique features:

  • All obstacles are bidirectional
  • Each clump of tunnels may be performed in any order and in any direction, so long as each of the tunnels is ultimately performed.
  • The handler must remain behind the containment line for each clump of tunnels.

Big dogs will have 50 seconds and small dogs 55 seconds.
A dog earns 100 points for the Jackpot Jump (#15) if time has not expired; whereupon the team may attempt the Bonus Obstacles (the inner circle of 7 obstacles (sans tunnel groups) for an additional 100 bonus points. Whole seconds remaining on the clock are added to the dog’s total score.

Scoring

Tunnel Vision is scored Points, Minus Faults, Then Time ER13. Highest score wins.

The top 20 performances are summarized below:

BLOG1237_16

Cumulative Results End of Day Saturday

BLOG1237_17

Sunday Results

The final day of the Petit Prix will feature only two classes. In the final round the top dogs will be set aside to run in their own spotlight. Agility is a game of subtle pressure.

Sunday began with a Standard run and concluded with Jumpers.

Standard 3

BLOG1237_18

The top 20 performances are summarized below:

BLOG1237_19

Cumulative Results Before Final Round

BLOG1237_20

Jumpers

BLOG1237_21

Jumpers is scored Faults, Then Time.

The final round, designed and judge by Mike McCoy was a smooth fast course with subtle technical challenges.

The top 20 performances are summarized below:

BLOG1237_22

Tournament Final Standings

BLOG1237_24

Technical Note

Technical difficulties prevented us from posting results in a more timely manner. Lesson learned. Next time we will take proper precautions.

BLOG1237 TDAA

Questions comments & impassioned speeches to Bud Houston Houston.Bud@gmail.com. Visit our web store: www.dogagility.org/newstore. You’ll find in the web store The Book of Agility Games, a comprehensive reference to all manner of agility games played for competition and fun around the world.

Games of the 2017 Petit Prix ~ Puppy Cannon

Leave a comment

We continue with an advanced look at the Games of the Petit Prix in anticipation of the 2017 Petit Prix: June 23 –25 in Farmington, UT.

UT

Jun  23 – 24 – 25 , 2017  Western Petit Prix   Trial Number T17999 Hosted by Beehive Small Dog Agility Club Farmington, UT Judges:  Mike McCoy and Natalie Russell Contact:  Penny  Flake at <paflake50@gmail.com> Three standard classes and 7  games. Premium

Today we’ll take a quick look at the game Puppy Cannon.

Puppy Cannon

BLOG1226

Briefing

The objective of Puppy Cannon is for the dog to run the three numbered sequences shown on the course map. The sequences can be taken in any order. The dog starts on the table and must begin with the two pipe tunnels (the Puppy Cannon) before the performance of each of the three sequences. On this course all sequences are bi-directional

After the final sequence the dog can go directly to the table to stop time or transition through the pipe tunnels (without a wrong course penalty) to get to the table.

Time begins when the dog leaves the table and ends when the dog returns to the table after the performance of all three sequences. Should the dog go to the table before all three sequences are complete the performance shall incur a wrong course fault.

Scoring

Scoring for Puppy Cannon is Time, Plus Faults. The dog with the lowest score wins. Qualifying course time will be determined by wheeled measurement.

A Note about course design

The whole idea of the “puppy cannon” is that the dog is fired from the tunnel like a projectile. Consequently whatever is framed to the dog during the performance of the pipe tunnel becomes a logical target for the dog’s attention.

With that in mind the design of a Puppy Cannon course will frame either end of the tunnel (or tunnels) with a wrong course option. That means that the game is truly a test of redirecting the dog on the dismount of the tunnel (Cannon).

Strategy ~ A statement of the obvious?

In our sample course the judge has allowed that all sequences are bidirectional. The savvy handler will carefully choose the order of performance in a way that will allow the handler to be in position to redirect the dog on the dismount of the tunnel cannons.

Note that in the sample course the counter-side pipe tunnel at black-circled #2 will also have to be counter-side if the sequence is taken in reverse order.

In the two tunnel variation the handler may step between the two pipe tunnels to change sides to the dog. The handler should exercise caution when stepping in front of a loaded cannon.

BLOG1226 TDAA

Questions comments & impassioned speeches to Bud Houston Houston.Bud@gmail.com. Visit our web store: www.dogagility.org/newstore. You’ll find in the web store The Book of Agility Games, a comprehensive reference to all manner of agility games played for competition and fun around the world.

Spacing Between Obstacles in the TDAA

1 Comment

This is an important notation for the Course Design College. In this series I share observations that I make on a routine basis to judges and course designers during the course review process. It is prudent to share these common observations with all of our judges to further their understanding of course design for the TDAA.

This is intended as a comprehensive discussion of the TDAA’s guidelines for spacing between obstacles in course design.

Let’s get the obvious out of the way first. This is the mission statement from the Rules and Regulations for the TDAA:

1.1 Mission

The purpose of the Teacup Dogs Agility Association is to provide a competitive venue for dogs of small stature without regard to breed or pedigree, and to encourage course challenges that are comparable to the course challenges which face large dog handlers in other popular venues.

The clear understanding of this mission statement: We intend to give the handler of the fast little Papillion the same thrilling roller coaster ride in the TDAA as the handler of the fast Border Collie in any of the big dog agility organization. We want that handler to be keen and timely. And when the spacing between obstacles is blown out of proper proportion, we fail that mission.

A Bit of Science

The rates of travel for the TDAA require modest yards per second (YPS) at any level. Built into this calculus is the degradation of a dog’s rate of travel caused by performance of the technical obstacles … namely the contacts and the weave poles.

This degradation of rates of travel occurs in all flavors of agility. However, the significant difference between the TDAA and any other, is that we don’t have large expanses of real estate between obstacles to recoup and elevate the YPS.

And so, when a course is presented for competition that gives too much space between obstacles the rate of travel required for qualification is an ineffective measurement.

A Course Review

BLOG1219_01

At first glance this makes a perfectly reasonable design for the Beginner level. I might tell the judge/course designer to rotate the #9 jump back to the dog’s approach (everything nice and square for the Beginner class). And I might remark that not enough room has been left for the approach to jump #1. A minimum of 10′ between the front of the ring and the first hurdle is our standard requirement.

What really jumps out at me about this course, however, is the overly generous spacing between obstacles. We’ll take a measurement.

BLOG1219_02

Using the “Path” tool in Clean Run Course Designer I measured this course at 258.5′. Subtract from that the length of dimensioned obstacles… 68′ to arrive at the calculated interval distance of 198.5′. Divide by the number of obstacles (-1) and the average interval spacing between obstacles is 14.65′.

The average interval spacing should come in not much over 10′ or 11′. It should be easy to tighten up this course without losing the nice flow originally envisioned by the course designer.

BLOG1219_03

It was fairly easy to tighten up this course. Now the dog has plenty of room to approach the first hurdle. Note too that a bit of extra room is given to the dog for the turn following jump #5, and the turn following jump #9.

BLOG1219_04

Using the same calculation… I measured this course at 214′; subtract 68′ to arrive at the calculated interval distance of 146′. Divide by the number of obstacles (-1) and the average interval spacing between obstacles is 11.23′.

Spacing for Technical Challenges and Turns

On the approach to a technical challenge (for example, a wrong course option or approaching an obstacle discrimination) the dog’s path should measure a minimum of 12′. The objective of this spacing is too give the handler an extra heartbeat to do his job.

We also provide a minimum of 12′ when requiring the dog to turn. This is an acknowledgement of basic physics. The inertia of a dog’s movement may require an additional stride or two. The faster the dog, the greater the inertia.

With this in mind, if the course designer incorporates a pinwheel, the spacing between jumps must be a minimum of 12′. It is the nature of a pinwheel that the dog is faced with a series of turns while (hopefully) at a full run.

A Note Aside

Every so often we’ll hear an exhibitor complain that his dog runs more slowly in the TDAA than when playing elsewhere. After all rate of travel is measurable. You take the length of the course (yards) and divide by time (seconds) to arrive at the dog’s YPS.

In true fact the dog works at the same pace in the TDAA (maybe even faster). But the degradation on the dog’s rate of travel due to performance of technical obstacles has a substantially greater impact when the overall length of the course is reduced.

BLOG1220 TDAA

Questions comments & impassioned speeches to Bud Houston Houston.Bud@gmail.com. Visit our web store: www.dogagility.org/newstore. You’ll find in the web store The Book of Agility Games, a comprehensive reference to all manner of agility games played for competition and fun around the world.

Welcoming New TDAA Judges

Leave a comment

Join me in congratulating to our recertifying judges and new judges after an intense TDAA Judges Clinic in Norman, Oklahoma, March 16-19, 2017.

BLOG1212_01

Cathy Jacobs ~ Floydada, TX (new)

Sara Brown ~ Norman, OK (new)

Lori Graham ~ Kerrville, TX (new)

Melissa Pugh ~ Chickasha, OK (new)

Carol Wyatt ~ McKinney, TX (new)

Deb Maicach ~ McKinney TX (new)

Debbie Vogel, Austin, TX (recert)

Emma Coombes ~ Georgetown, TX (new)

Regina Schmerfeld ~ Yukon, OK (recert)

Jeanette Bider ~ Norman, OK (new)

Kaye Kirk ~ Oklahoma City, OK (recert)

Lynn Foster ~ Temple, TX (recert)

William McGovern-Fagg ~ Norman, OK (new)

Lyn Johnson ~ Bartlesville, OK (recert)

BLOG1212_02

Carol Wyatt and her dog Deuce earned the TACh 2 at the trial in Norman. Presenting the TACh bar and ribbon for this accomplishment was newly certified (and barefoot) TDAA judge William McGovern-Fagg.

BLOG1212 Home

Questions comments & impassioned speeches to Bud Houston Houston.Bud@gmail.com. Visit our web store: www.dogagility.org/newstore. You’ll find in the web store The Book of Agility Games, a comprehensive reference to all manner of agility games played for competition and fun around the world.

Older Entries