Curious about the number of placings judge witheld from yesterday, including in GC. Not my breed but curious as by early afternoon news had spread around nearby rings about the number of Ridgeback exhibitors not happy about it.  Anyone know if the judge gave any reasons in general?

It was unreal, I'm an RR owner and modest shower nothing at Crufts.
Watched and was dumbfounded.
The joint top puppy dog of the year with reserve cc handed at Manchester by breed specialist was dumped as well as another 6 in junior dog.
Then even in Good Citizen dog places were withheld for res and VHC
In some classes only 3 places awarded no withheld listed
There are many other criticisms levelled and I believe letters are being compiled.

Goodness, in one class she has 7 exhibits left to choose from but witheld all the other places. I think the critique will be an interesting one to read! I know we are trying to work out what the judge didn't like but if these dogs were good enough to normally receive honours then it's a bit of a kick in the teeth for the owners, breeders and judges that qualified them.

I do hope they get a satisfactory explanation.

Seems excessive amount of dissatisfaction by the judge with her entry, I do wonder if the judge was judging to the UK breed standard or to some other that perhaps calls for dogs with features or may be exaggerations that are not called for in the UK standard and are therefore not present in all our exhibits.

Thanks.  This witholding in the UK with no complusory explanation is wrong.  Particularly at Crufts as previous judges that year have deemed exhibits fit to be there in the first place.  And as you say a top puppy with a RCC being witheld on is a bit of an insult to those other hudges that gave it previous accolades.  If they had grading at least even with DQ's a judge has to give a reason.  How are we as exhibitors and breeders to learn and move forward if we do not know why judges consider exhibits not worthy of a place?  I will look out for the critique with interest. 

> I do wonder if the judge was judging to the UK breed standard or to some other that perhaps calls for dogs with features or may be exaggerations that are not called for in the UK standard

A UK show and as with all judges assigned to shows here, particularly Crufts they agree to judge by the UK standard not the one of another country, not even the FCI ones.  If the judge in this case is proven to have not then it will be interesting to see what action the KC take.  Ditto when you judge abroad you are bound in agreement to judge by that countries standard.

Indeed but once in the ring I wonder if years of experience somewhere else came to the fore and the judge frankly just forgot what she should have been doing - or could just be that she has very high standards and forgot to judge to the standard and not her personal requirements.

> Indeed but once in the ring I wonder if years of experience somewhere else came to the fore and the judge frankly just forgot what she should have been doing

I think when some judges get to their once in a lifetime Crufts assignment reason goes out the window.  Our own judge yesterday made a complete pigs ear of the whole thing and did EXACTLY what she has griped about other judges doing for years.

Judge was not a breed specialist as it happens
I mean even going on height/colour/White/ridge variations she had little consistency in her choices leaving us confused
All credit without reservation to those winning and placed and BoB is a fabulous dog indeed
But no explanation leaves us as a breed fancier no further forward...

I was horrified by the judging of my breed yesterday, I could make no sense of it whatsoever. I couldn't bear to watch - for the first time ever, I left before the end of judging :(

> Judge was not a breed specialist as it happens

Maybe a stupid question but why on earth would Crufts organisers go to the trouble and expense of getting a foreign judge if she wasn't a breed specialist? that makes no sense at all to me.

Phew, that does seem odd. I know there was a big uproar about the judging last year in my breed, no idea if anyone complained though. Throwing out the big winners does seem strange - I shall watch out for that critique!!

It doesn't make sense to us exhibitors either :(

> I mean even going on height/colour/White/ridge variations she had little consistency in her choices leaving us confused
>

BOB & BPIB were sire and his son, that's consistent!    BPIB's owner is a friend and she's very happy!

> The joint top puppy dog of the year with reserve cc handed at Manchester by breed specialist was dumped as well as another 6 in junior dog.
>

We've all been there at some point.  My own LM was 2nd top LM pup/3rd top LM one year and she had a RCC too.  That didn't stop one 'breed specialist' giving her 2nd out of 2 at a limited show to a dog with half a tail!  :rolleyes:

I know BPIB owner too he is a super puppy as is his sire.
But when there was so much withholding we were looking at what it was the judge was after and it seemed inconsistent ( but then I am a novice)
That's meant with no disrespect to winning and placed exhibits, in fact prevailing on such a day is more of an accolade perhaps.

I think just an explanation would really assist moving forward as the collective breed enthusiasts are pretty devastated to be honest.

In instances where the judge witholds one or more placings are they required to make a report to the show committee or the KC?

I just wondered if there is a process that must be followed in these circumstances; it would seem odd if the only reporting was done via a critique...

> I just wondered if there is a process that must be followed in these circumstances; it would seem odd if the only reporting was done via a critique...

That is the problem with judges withholding in the UK, they are NOT required to give an explanation to anyone, not even to the exhibitor/handler on the day verbally.  No thing has to be said or put in writing to the show committee or KC, nothing has to be mentioned at all in the critique. 

That is the problem with judges withholding in the UK, they are NOT required to give an explanation to anyone, not even to the exhibitor/handler on the day verbally.  No thing has to be said or put in writing to the show committee or KC, nothing has to be mentioned at all in the critique.

If it is the first time awarding CCs then there will have been an assessor present who will put in a report but that will not be a report of the placings as no one except the judge will know why the dogs were placed as they were, it is just a report on ring procedure. However I believe if several complaints are received the matter will be looked at.

There was a significant level of witholding in another breed too, and perhaps if we were to examine all the results there may be more.

I handled my daughters Bracco Italiano and thought myself very honoured not to have witholding done in my class. Places were witheld in 4 Bracco classes. This has made me wonder if the Judges might have been briefed beforhand to keep in mind fitness for function, health and wellbeing and exageration.

Dawn R.

But if the judges job is to "educate" how on earth are the breeders expected to know how to improve whatever is meant to be "wrong" if they do not receive a satisfactory explanation? I did not exhibit this year but was told that our judge was passing comment so at least they had a clue what she wasn't impressed with.

I think having paid a hefty fee to enter, being put through by other experienced judges the exhibitors at least deserve reasons for withholding when they read the critique. However, it is ONE judges opinion on that particular day :( As others have said that is not to take anything away from the winners :)

> But if the judges job is to "educate" how on earth are the breeders expected to know how to improve whatever is meant to be "wrong" if they do not receive a satisfactory explanation? I did not exhibit this year but was told that our judge was passing comment so at least they had a clue what she wasn't impressed with.
>
>

EXACTLY what I have said all along.  It is the judge's opinion on the day and their right to withhold if they deem fit.  But at least tell the exhibitors why.  If there are serious breed faults in one or more exhibits that the judge considers detrimental to the form and function of the dog then they should say so, how on earth will people learn and move on to improve without the knowledge.  Now on the other hand I was told a judge withheld at a show last year as she did not like the head on a dog and she told the handler so - pure aesthetics, the head is perfectly acceptable within the breed standard, that was just sour grapes as the judge did not approve of the bloodline but the said judge should have been required to submit a written explanation and maybe the KC could have disciplined her for unacceptable conduct.

Being informed I agree with but since when was it the job of the judge to educate? The judges job is to assess the exhibits and to place them in the order they conform in their opinion to the breed standard and if only one or two in a class 'in their opinion' fit the standard then that is what they will place.

Lets be fair most people would rather not read what the judge found to dislike or why they felt your dog was not to type or to standard.

Think it is suggested by the KC that the judge should explain why they have withheld but only to the person concerned and in private.

Ooh I shall have to look out for that critique as well - must be so awful to have a place withheld, specially at Crufts!

> Lets be fair most people would rather not read what the judge found to dislike or why they felt your dog was not to type or to standard.
>
> Think it is suggested by the KC that the judge should explain why they have withheld but only to the person concerned and in private.

The odd withholding may be true but to do so on so many is one show gives the impression the breed as a whole in the UK is in crisis for want of a better word.  Makes more and more for the case of introducing grading, maybe even written critiques, on the day to each exhibit, the judge then has nowhere to hide.

And the KC has no guidlines at all to us judges on what to say to an exhibit you have withheld on, as far as they are concerned you are not required to say diddly squat which in todays economy and cost of showing is just plain lack of manners and consideration to the exhibitors.

As far as reading what a judges dislikes about your animal and not wanting to read it or have it made public then you should not be exhibiting in the first case then, there are dozens of critiques out there giving at times scathing views on individuals without having withheld on them anway.

Well with luck this judge will preface the critique with a summery of the exhibits seen, it is not unusual for a judge to say what pleased or displeased them about their entry so it will no doubt become clear in time, they may well have found one problem throughout the entry that displeased something like poor movement or may be an exaggeration.

You are correct the KC says you should explain if dismissing a dog from the ring but there is no comment required about withholding one presumes that is because the only reason to withhold is lack of merit, so one would think this judge thought the entry lacked merit to such an extent they withheld.

I am surprised that if the exhibitors were so alarmed they did not ask the judge at the end of judging but perhaps they did.

I do believe the KC chief steward was asked to come down and speak the judge, then the judge said she had been instructed to focus on healthy happy, fit for purpose animals and this she said was what she was doing.
Now in one class (the exhibitor told em this) Judge awarded 4 places, then dismissed the class with a handclap as if to praise... The steward asked her was she not awarding a VHC, so she looked around at the remaining dogs who were sort of confused by then and awarded my friend the VHC

It sounds like there could have been many confusions...
But without explanation, some of the best performing dogs of the previous year were withheld, now these top winning dogs might be someones future breeding programme.
Without an explanation, does the exhibitor believe the other 30 judges (est) in the previous year or the one day at Crufts?

I do hope the critique makes it clear, nothing can bring the day back again and the breed as whole (UK at least) is in pretty indignant shock.

After speaking to a friend who is a RR expert it would seem that the judge was penalising for height & colour. The breed is getting too high and too dark for the breed standard. don't shoot me Im only the messenger ;o)
Be interesting to see if  that coincides with the judges critique

After speaking to a friend who is a RR expert it would seem that the judge was penalising for height & colour. The breed is getting too high and too dark for the breed standard. don't shoot me Im only the messenger ;o)
Be interesting to see if  that coincides with the judges critique

Does have a ring of truth about it, not noticed the hight but there have been some very dark dogs winning, lovely colour but possible not correct - thing that worries me is how can the hight (unless very much out) and the colour mean the animal lacks merit I have always considered that to be a matter or conformation and temperament, health and well being it is hard to imagine a dog that is an inch of so too tall or is too dark a red could be described as lacking in merit but perhaps it is my reading of the rules that is faulty.

If a breed standard states a certain height then anything over or under those heights will not be correct. ie The 3 Poodle heights are very specific.
My breed standard is 14" to 16" preferring bitches to be nearer 14" and dogs nearer to 16". My bitch is nearer to the 16" mark and is therefore oversided for a bitch and didn't do so well at ch. shows where people in the breed (who know) judge, but she did quite well for me at open shows.
personally I prefer them to be a bit bigger anyway but thats only me!!

Lets not forget as well, that some of the ones that got through to qualifying for Crufts, may only have had two or three in the classes. So unless the previous judge would withold, and lets face it, it rarely happens, then they have qualified!!

There were dogs witheld in Pomeranian Puppy Bitch also.  From the ringside they looked fine, the two dogs that were placed at times wouldn't even move so I'm not sure what was wrong with the rest, must have been their mouths as I saw one close up and she looked fine and moved lovely.

Well lets not forget if a judge withheld from any dog that had a feature that did not match the standard perfectly then none would ever be placed - there is no such thing as a perfect dog.

A judge should only withhold if the dog lacks merit - now what that means is a matter for the judge to decide but being a little to large or small or not quite the right shade would not in my mind justify my thinking the exhibit lacked enough merit to warrant me withholding.  It could be this judge misunderstood the instructions to a judge and thinks that any small deviation from the standard means the dog is not fit for purpose.

Do find the idea that from an entry of 10 only 2 where good enough to be placed - if this is so there really is a problem in the young RR male.

A judge should only withhold if the dog lacks merit - now what that means is a matter for the judge to decide

Maybe time for the KC to copy the GCCF's approach and publish a list of withholding faults for each breed.

I noticed that she also with held in Good Citizen...... I admit that I have never really known on what criteria this class is judged, is it against the standard or their "performance" on the day?I know they have to have passed the GC broze upwards to have qualified.

GC is an entirely normal class but only open to those that have passed bronze and above.

> A judge should only withhold if the dog lacks merit - now what that means is a matter for the judge to decide
>
> Maybe time for the KC to copy the GCCF's approach and publish a list of withholding faults for each breed.

I was just going to add something about cat showing!    Withholding is common place at cat shows and it certainly 'toughens' you up.    You can go and ask the judge why they withheld or you can wait for the critique.

I wonder do they measure Ridgebacks in Europe when judging?  They do in my breed at the VGM shows.

As Marianne says it should be judged exactly as any other class, it's just that the dogs have qualified for Crufts AND passed at least the bronze test. I've heard awful stories of judges asking for the 'fastest sit' and so on in the early days, but I think people are getting the hang of it now.

Going back to a previous comment, it is extremely unlikely that a judge would be invited to award ccs for the first time at Crufts, unless that breed was getting ccs for the first time which always happens at Crufts.

This judge has been judging RRs for over 20 years on championship level. Being from Finland, she like her finnish colleuges, is very strict in her judging. They notice every little detail that's not up to standard. As we get a written critique on every shown dog here, we all get to know exactly what's not to the judge's liking. I was not at Cruft's this year. But some friends of mine were. Their impression of the breed as a whole was rather large males, modest angulations and unfortunately many flat feet. Flat feet I'm sure to this judge would be enough to withold placings. On the positive side they saw lots of good toplines, nice temperaments and dogs happy to be in the ring.
Now I'm off to hide behind something large.....

> But if the judges job is to "educate" how on earth are the breeders expected to know how to improve whatever is meant to be "wrong" if they do not receive a satisfactory explanation? I did not exhibit this year but was told that our judge was passing comment so at least they had a clue what she wasn't impressed with.
>
>

and in fact the Kennel club doesn't allow verbal critiquing of exhibits, which would in fact be most helpful, and of course the judge would be giving their opinion before they had sight of the catalogue ;)

I used to Love Stewarding at Rabbit shows as the good judges would while judging say what it was they were looking for and why they were placing as trey did, so you were able to learn quite a lot.

Jackie in FCI countries too much over or under height will mean the dog lacks merit and won't get a first/excellent grading.

Jackie in FCI countries too much over or under height will mean the dog lacks merit and won't get a first/excellent grading.

Yes, I do know that but there are no disqualifying faults in this country - a dog can be dismissed from the ring un-judged if the judge thinks it un-fit or aggressive to people or other dogs and this can happen at any time before, during or after judging.

However in the UK the ONLY reason allowed for withholding is lack of merit (whatever that is) otherwise dogs should be judged and placed in order of their ability to fulfil the breed standard. So as far as I understand it even a very poor example as long as it has type and is fit should be placed or chucked but not withheld.

This judge was judging here and not in a FCI country and either they did not understand our way but if they have given CC before then they should have understood the difference after all I do not think the entry could have been all that appalling.

Perhaps the problem lies in the actual definition of "Lack of Merit" - it has always seemed strange to me, to be able to see the distinction between withholding due to lack of merit and disqualifying as not to standard (which happens abroad).  Judges perceptions (as we all know) differ greatly, so what construes lack of merit - is it 1 major fault of construction, several minor faults, something differing from an important breed specific requirement?  It is all left to the judge to decide and obviously without explanation the exhibitors are never going ot be the wiser, let hope for an in depth explanatory critique.

Too true Gwen, a lot may depend on the judges outlook on life - a half empty person may consider any deviation from the standard would cause the dog to be considered lacking in merit where as a half full judge would think only a dog with lack of type or such poor construction that it was unsound to even consider withholding.

RR critique is in DW, nothing written about reasons for withholding but in a seperate article, the judge said she had not liked some of the dogs " They were too big,too heavy and with wrong heads, some of the classes were very weak"
A KC spokesman said she knew no details of what had happened but if any were reported to them they would be considered.

When I read about this I did think they must have had Finnish judge :) and funnily enough it seems they did!
In Finland to be placed in the class dog needs to get Excellent grading, anything less you will not be placed.
Maybe the judge used this as her "guide" and any dog she would have not given Excellent was chucked and not placed.
It is quite common for dogs not to get excellent as well so it is not a big deal, happens to most dogs when they are not in a top condition or not of the quality required.

Of course they should have judged to English rules but if you are used to being critical and not placing dogs not worthy of being placed, the English way seems quite weird and I'm sure many Finnish judges do not understand why a dog that is not up to the standard should be placed and given credit.