USDAA Weave Spacing

[agilepawz]

I’ve been following the 24” weave spacing discussion on the USDAA list, its very reminiscent of the A-frame discussion from a couple of years ago.   Since it is a subscription list, I’m not going to post any of the emails here, if you want to follow it, go subscribe to the yahoogroups list.

As for me, I’m in favor of 24”. I like them, my dogs like

Comments

[sclmarm]

While I think that 24" spacing would be better, I'm fine with 22" and will be contacting at least my club to please get the bigger weaves. I have way more concerns about the teeny tiny tire that we've all see dogs have horrible crashes on, mine included. Right now, for me, that is a much larger concern than the smaller weave spacing. I would also like to see mandatory rubber pellet surface on contacts so that we can count on a decent surface for our dogs. To me the contact surface and tire concerns far out weigh the weave spacing.

[agilepawz]

Yes, they are all issues that come to light as this sport evolves. Why do we have to prioritize them? Its possible to make more than one change at a time. They are all safety concerns and are further examples of how USDAA could lead the way in safety rather than being reactionary.

[sclmarm]

But how many of us have complained about all the changes NADAC made/makes? I remember when USDAA changed the a frame height and some other things about the same time, people were upset about that. To many changes they said.

I would like to see people take responsibility and if they are still seeing 20" weaves, to take it up with the clubs and get them replaced with 22" weaves.

[agilepawz]

I never complained about NADAC making changes. I didn't like how their changes were being managed and communicated. And in some situations the justification given for the change made no sense at all. From a overall perspective, this situation is not all that much different except that NADAC took one extreme and Ken is taking another. There is nothing wrong with change, as long as there is a benefit to the change (ie., a safety increase). Change for no reason makes no sense. And not changing when there is reason to also makes no sense. Neither of those are in the best interest of the sport (or any business for that matter). Its also important to recognize when change is necessary, which in my opinion is something both Ken and NADAC are lacking. The weave pole spacing is just one example

[cedarfield]

Not to turn this into a tire war :-) but most of the tire crashes I've seen are a result of the dog taking off too soon and I don't see how that has anything to do with the diameter of the tire.

[sclmarm]

I should have said, not only the diameter, but it's rigidity. If you put a jump in front of the tire set at the same height, there is a very small portion of the tire that is at the dogs actual jump height, leaving little room for error. A bigger diameter gives the dogs a few more inches within their actual jump height. Having a dog that has his jumping issues, Nub, whom we've spent a lot of time training jumping, when he, or even dogs who jump well, mucks up on the tire it is just so unforgiving. I must take some responsibility too, in that a late command has caused my dog to hit the tire. So, all over the rest of the course we give the dog a four foot area for them to negotiate, then we ask them to go through a hole with only three or four inches at their actual jump height.

[cedarfield]

That's true, taking the tire at an angle cuts way down on the amount of space the dog has to jump through. There's no doubt it's an advanced piece of equipment and requires a lot of careful training.
I wouldn't want to see it removed from competition, though.

[sclmarm]

I don't want to see the tire gone either, just modified. We give lessons where there is a break away tire. It's the self healing magnetic kind. I like it, but it is made of some kind of rough, light weight material. A furry Border Collie we have in class has had his tail get velcroed to the material and it breaks the magnet. I don't know how you would judge it. NADAC came out with a tire that the bottom third was displacable. I really liked that design. I don't know what the answer is, but I wish we could come up with something.

[agilityfrk]

USDAA did approve displaceable tires last year. Unfortunately, it was a decision made without all the challenges fully thought out. I hear rumors that they're close to deciding how to judge it. I was at a trial back east where my ring's tire was set 2" lower than normal (still had one crash) and the other had the displaceable tire. All tires in the second ring were filmed. There were so many issues, what determines successful completion, how much weight should make it break apart, if the tire breaking apart was at all part of judging etc, etc, etc.

[agilepawz]

Yeah, it does have its own set of challenges to go along with it.

One thing I've noticed in training is that some dogs (mine included) will get a little more sloppy about how they execute the tire jump if they know it will break away. I see that as a safety issue since not all tires are breakaway. I'd hate to see any dog execute a traditional tire jump at a trial or in training thinking it would give at the bottom, and then find out the hard way that it doesn't. So I've stopped training with them. I'm not opposed to using them in trials, but I'm not going to train on them anymore.