New USDAA jump heights

Sort of amusing are the new USDAA jump heights, just because you wouldn't think they could really go wrong with this.  I mean, short of making everyone jump HIGHER I thought this announcement could only be good for USDAA.  I really underestimated how unnecessarily complicated USDAA can make things.

I swear, just change the god damn height cut-offs to be more user friendly - how hard is that?  If you have to make up new heights to do it, go for 10, 14, 18, 22, 26 - be innovative.  Instead they pretty much did absolutely nothing but make the jumps heights INCREDIBLY complicated and confusing and SO MANY.  Then they're just going to combine the heights back together for scoring - WTF?  Seriously, did they even run this by anyone at all?

So, yeah, still no mini dog jump height, didn't change the 26 inch cut-off, still no midi-height - because while they did make a minuscule 18 inch class (spread across a whopping 1.5 inches), they're just combining the scores with the 22 inch dogs anyway.  So a 16 inch dog is STILL competing against a 20.5 border collie - and then they didn't even bother to mirror the program in Performance, like they're not even worth the effort.  So the 16 inch dog is still competing against 21 inch border collies, but now at the same height too.

I can't even tell who they we trying to 'help' with these changes.  So many equipment modifications and jump height changes now - which are then totally different in Performance.  So they now have 8, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 26 ... but not in every program.  Good lord.  i'm still just amazed,  I guess I really just thought they would adjust the heights to be spread more evenly across the height so it's more comfortable jump height for a larger amount of dogs.  That would be too easy, apparently.  Heck, then I heard the 18 inch jump height rumor and I thought it was a great idea, a chance to break up the giant clusterfuck that is the 22 inch class.  But no.

It sounds like this is a done deal, which is disappointing, I liked the direction USDAA was going in with more challenging courses, but I think this will be final nail in the coffin for USDAA in our area.  People just have no interest in jumping their dogs that high, they'd much rather play in venues that are more appropriate.  There are already so few USDAA trials left around here, and this change does NOTHING to bring in new people.  It's a pity, I had hopes that this announcement might help bring USDAA back.

Oh yeah, and at the same time they decided, "You know what agility needs?  MORE TABLES!  Am I right?  Let's not only keep the table, let's put it in ALL THE CLASSES.  Hell yeah!"

I'm just so excited to get Bright started in USDAA now
Wait Wait Wait... MORE tables? I never saw anything about that. Is it a sort of "stop the clock" thing? Or are they putting tables in snooker or jumpers now?? I'm freaking out here!
myeah, I agree. I just shook my head after reading the announcement. I find their decisions rather baffling, and confusing. I certainly won't be jumping my (less athletic, heavy-boned) 21 3/4 inch dog in USDAA at 26 inches, that's just (in my opinion) asking too much from him. And why split the medium and large classes, but not the small and open? *boggle* So some dogs never have to jump more than 1-2 inches over shoulder height, and some dogs have to jump more than 4?

I guess there's always performance :-)
This whole announcement was simply mind boggling. They really had to work hard to get the new heights that f-ed up and inconsistent. Wow. I was thinking about doing more USDAA over this coming year but I find it hard to support an organization that has such a hard time making common sense decisions.
USDAA is all about the 22 inch class. All they're doing with the change is winnowing out the "off-breeds" from that class.

It will be even more pure, more elite, more admirable. Can you hear the angels singing?

(don't tell Bender I wrote this...)
USDAA used to be my favorite venue. There are a lot of reasons I like it, particularly the tournament program and the more challenging courses, but the decisions they've made in the last few years have slowly ruined it for me. I really do think this is the nail in the coffin. It doesn't effect me a whole lot since I'd be fine jumping Panic at performance for awhile (although I don't understand why they didn't make the 26" cutoff 22") but it just seems like the most complicated "solution" for a really simple request from the majority of competitors.

This and waiting until 2017 for the 24" weave requirement just...doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Why on earth would it take that long to phase out a weave pole spacing that almost no one uses anymore?
OMG - they still have 21" spacing? I hadn't kept up since I haven't run USDAA for a few years now. Well that if nothing else, seals it for me - not putting Lana thru that back killer.
It's 22", which isn't a whole lot better. 24" is allowed so pretty much everyone uses it, but there was a real fuss last year because they insisted on using 22" spacing at Nationals.
Wait, I found it:
"The Table

The table shall continue to be performed in the down position and shall be permitted to be used in the Gamblers and other classes. The definition of "down" is being studied and further definition and guidance for judges (including for possible uses of the table in Gamblers and/or Snooker) will be provided by January 1, 2014."

Oh for fux sake...
Someone commented on an email list or FB or somewhere, that when used in the games classes that it would be just get on the table, get the down position and then continue on, without the count, because that somehow makes sense... sometimes you have to wait on the table and sometimes you don't. I sure hope that is wrong but as crazy as the USDAA decisions have been, it wouldn't surprise me! And don't even get me started on how they are going to redefine the down position! Huh?
All they had to do was to make the table positionless, so simple, really. But as usual, USDAA has to be dragged kicking and screaming into make changes.
I think it would be fascinating to sit in on a board meeting when this stuff gets discussed. I can't EVEN imagine who thinks this is a good idea.
It really is weird. Such a huge disconnect between the board and their customers. I realize you can't make everyone happy but this decision really makes no sense whatsoever.
I think the USDAA is trying to get rid of non BCs without coming out and saying so. My little guy has to jump 126% to be in championship? blech

What is the point in the table exactly? Hasn't the sport gone beyond this boring, lame obstacle? Do they want us to stay even longer than a typical USDAA trial goes? Maybe being at a trial for only 12 hours is too short for them?

If it weren't for masters challenge, steeplechase and snooker I would be outta there....................
We have problems with smooth breeds having daylight under their bottoms even when their legs are definitely in the down position - hocks flat to the table - some dobes can't get their bottoms on the table due to their structure unless they do a hip roll - how unfair is that?

Edited at 2013-08-01 10:49 pm (UTC)
I've found judges to be not be to strict on the down on the table. Mine have had elbows up and the judge still counted.
Ha Ha, you made me laugh with that comment! Doesn't everyone hate table? What is the point in the darn thing? Isn't USDAA supposed to be speed? Oh, no, it is supposed to be only BC, all the time.

I feel like USDAA is trying to get rid of the off breed, small dog, medium dog without just telling us to our face. If it weren't for steeplechase and the games, I would let it go............................

Oh and... if you do a google for "More tables in USDAA" you get like 7 usdaa sites, and YOURS! way to go pal. :)
Well, it has always been a BC fest and is not really a venue for other breeds. That's what the other venues are for. That's how I need to look at it before I call "unfair". It isn't about me and dobes; it is about BCs. And maybe that's just as fair as it gets - isn't this "the BC sport"?

I can always play in ASCA with the Aussies, or NADAC with the tunnelers, or CPE with the low stress AKC alternative + games, or AKC with everyone and their best friend - I wish AKC would split the Excellent classes and run them with multiple judges or something - do something - it sucks to wait thru those huge classes for the 2nd run of the day.

Edited at 2013-08-01 09:33 pm (UTC)
I'm bummed, because I'd been thinking that at least it would give me a chance to run Pirate at 18". But then I realized they have the 18" dogs doing the tall A-frame. I really don't think he should do the tall A-frame.
I am astounded. I thought they would have to improve something for somebody when they changed the jump heights. So far, the only good for my 21 and a smidge dog is that she won't have to jump over her shoulder height in performance.
I feel for the clubs that don't have the equipment that will accomodate the various jump heights. That is a lot of money and time to either refurbish jumps or get new ones.

The table addition was the strangest decision, particularly for a venue that promotes speed, HUH.
I went back through Max's records on USDAA competitor services. There aren't less trials in the local area. CAT used to have three trials, but after the January one got canceled and the number of trials had to be equal, that one was dropped, but that was years ago. Since then Fleet Feet has added their tournament only trail. I know these aren't local, but RAT puts on two, BAAD one and RHR four. So if you count all of those there are more trials than there was.

As for the new jump heights, it's kinda weird, but every organization has their good and bad points. I'm glad to have the choice as to where I want to spend my agility dollars:)