Maltese Cross

[pucksfurcoat]

I would appreciate some help understanding options for Maltese Crosses. Read some old posts from 2007 which were very informative. However, I'm still unclear on exactly how they are performed. For the sake of discussion, let's say the cross is set up with the panels oriented N-S and W-E. Let's assume the panels are 8 ft long and set about 3 feet apart - seems to be the "norm". There seems to be consensus that the Cross is located after the last drive panel. Seems the most reasonable attempt plane is at the opposing end of the chute entrance chosen by the handler. Correct me if I'm wrong up to this point. OK, now - the handler choses a quadrant to stand in - what are the boundaries? Do they have to stay in that quadrant until the obsticle is completed? The sheep are required to go "straight" through - right? In this case either through the N-S chute or the E-W chute? Does the handler control one of the "side" openings and the dog the other? Can't picture how this happens, especially on the handler's part. Do the sheep have to then, upon exit of either the N-S chute or the E-W chute have to them complete the chute in the other direction? When scoring, is a Cross like the pen where all the sheep must go through, or is there a point deduction if some of the sheep miss? What is the total point value on the cross? Does the Cross take the place of a shed, or is it in addition to the shed? Thanks in advance for educating me!

 

Sonja

[Gloria Atwater]

Hi Sonja,

 

I've only once encountered a Maltese cross in a field trial but I've done them in arena trials.

 

As a general rule, once a handler chooses a quadrant, they must stay in that quadrant until the cross is copleted. They can influence the sheep to a certai extent, but they may not put any body part in the chutes of the cross: i.e. No waving one's hand or arm in the cross chute to stop the sheep turning the wrong way. Though at least one judge said the "quadrant" is not limited to the little area, but rather one may move within the imaginary lines of the quandrant,so one *can* step out to the side. Once the sheep have gone thru one wasy, (say E - W,) the dog brings them around to go the other way (say N - S.)

 

I pretty much treat the Maltese cross as a weird, skinny pen, and so does my dog. The main trick for me, besides getting the sheep to go along with the plan, is picking which quadrant to stand in, to best help my dog. If there is a heavy draw for the sheep, I try to set it up so the dog covers that side, unless the judge tells where the handler must stand. Which I haven't seen, yet.

 

Does this help?

 

Gloria

[Gloria Atwater]

Sorry for type-os, I'm typing on my phone!

[juliepoudrier]

Sonja,

Generally you would do both parts of the cross. Choosing which quadrant is pretty easy--you want to be in the quadrant that allows you to influence/cover the openings to both legs of the cross that the sheep must enter (otherwise, your dog would have to cover both sides of the entrance and you'd be standing in some other quadrant unable to do anything to help). For example, if the sheep go through first north to south and then are turned and go through the second chute eat to west, you'd want to be in the upper right/NE (looking at a picture in front of you) quadrant so that you can cover/work both the north entrance and the east entrance (because you do treat the entrance to the chute like a pen opening).

 

Gloria's right that you can't put body parts in the cross (although some judges will show leniency for crooks/sticks waving *above* the cross). And you can draw an imaginary straight line out from the opening of the chute in your quadrant, which means you can go past your side of the chute opening (but not cross in front of it) to, say, meet the sheep coming on the last leg of the drive and slow them, settle them, or otherwise increase your odds of them going straight into the chute (it would be akin to a modified wear with you to the front of the sheep on on the side that includes your quadrant, and the dog on the opposite side and a little behind the sheep to push them forward (of course that's a generaliztion and depending on how the sheep react to the dog vs. the human, this configuration could change. Your position in the interior corner of the quadrant helps prevent the sheep from taking a right angle and going out the wrong leg, just as your dog should be flanking around the other side of the chute just enough to prevent them turning and going out that side, but so far forward as to stop forward motion out of the correct leg. Bumping your dog around (assuming the sheep aren't running) will prevent the sheep from coming out that side and will allow your dog to be in the position to turn the sheep as soon as they come out of that leg back toward the other leg, where of course you're already covering your side of that opening.

 

IME, the cross can take the place of a pen (especially for sheep that are inclined to run right in to a regular pen) or be an added element to the course (for example, at the NC State Championship trial in May, the Maltese cross is a fixture on the ranch--one step below open--course, and in that case it's positioned after the cross drive panel and before the pen). I have very occasionally seen it in place of the shed because it's really more about penning skills. Depending on the sheep, the course director may call the chute "make or miss" or say that you must complete the chute (all sheep, both sides) before going to the next element. In a "make or miss" situation, usually a miss will be called if the sheep go past the first chute exit (in my example, that would mean that the sheep bypassed the north entrance and then passed the south exit). That's variable, of course, but it's one way to make sure that a ton of time isn't spent trying to get the sheep through the chute. I've never seen a situation where only some could go through, the exception would be points and time trials in which you get points for each head through, so of course for max points you need to get all through but it's not required they all go through.

 

As for scoring, that also depends on the course director. I've seen the cross be given a total of 20 points where each leg counted for 10 and also where the total number of points could be deducted anywhere on the cross at the judge's discretion. I think it's more commonly looked at as two halves, at least IME.

 

J.

[NorthfieldNick]

Listen carefully to the judge when a MC is involved! I got DQ'ed on a very nice run because I didn't follow directions & did the cross wrong. Judge wanted ALL the sheep to go through the correct first direction before you attempted the other side. I got two through, one turned. Put sheep through the other way, got a "Thank you!" and lost a spot in the placings (and oe of the cool prizes this s known for).

 

The cross took the place of a shed in this trial. The flock used is notoriously impossible to shed. So much so that it's a waste of time to even include one in the course. (This was a trial associated with a fair, on a small field.)

[pucksfurcoat]

Thanks so much for all the great info!

 

Sonja

[pucksfurcoat]

A few more questions...

I understand that the handler treats the chute entrance as the gate to a pen (although they cannot step out of the quadrant). So how does the handler influence the sheep not to turn 90 degrees at the midpoint if they cannot "block" that part of the chute? If the handler cannot step outside the quadrant, or stick a crook out - seems like it would be very difficult to influence the sheep. The dog can go to the opposite chute opening (at the side) and put pressure on the sheep, but the handler cannot step out - right? Also, the sheep cannot easily turn around in the chute, so are you typically "toast" if they make a 90 degree turn after entering? Thanks~

Sonja

[Eileen Stein]

Well, you want the sheep to be moving straight ahead, you don't want to stop their progress. So you want to gauge how far behind them you need to be on your side, and how far behind them your dog needs to be on his side, to keep them moving forward at a nice slow steady pace. If you get that right, they will probably walk straight through -- after all, they came into the chute looking straight ahead, and they can see a way out straight ahead. If one looks as if she is going to turn down the chute on your side -- perhaps because your dog has come too far forward on his side -- usually you don't need to actually block the chute to discourage/turn her. If you act quickly enough, you can usually catch her eye with a movement that is still within your quadrant, and thereby cause her to turn away and think better of it. If you fail -- and yes, you are typically toast once they've actually made the 90-degree turn and come fully into the side chute -- then try harder to anticipate next time.

 

Remember, sheep's eyes are much farther to the side than people's eyes (or dog eyes, for that matter), so they can see and be influenced by movement to the side and behind them more readily.

[Gloria Atwater]

A few more questions...

I understand that the handler treats the chute entrance as the gate to a pen (although they cannot step out of the quadrant). So how does the handler influence the sheep not to turn 90 degrees at the midpoint if they cannot "block" that part of the chute? If the handler cannot step outside the quadrant, or stick a crook out - seems like it would be very difficult to influence the sheep. The dog can go to the opposite chute opening (at the side) and put pressure on the sheep, but the handler cannot step out - right? Also, the sheep cannot easily turn around in the chute, so are you typically "toast" if they make a 90 degree turn after entering? Thanks~

Sonja

 

What Eileen said.

 

Once the sheep are committed to entering the chute of the cross, if you let them keep flowing, it typically doesn't take a great deal to keep them going straight. If they do turn, it's most likely because the handler or the dog are in the wrong spot or made the wrong move. Part of the trick is to keep your dog from over-flanking and catching the sheep's eyes, which would cause them to make that unwanted 90 degree turn.

 

Generally you can stick a crook out - you just can't put your arm or hand in to block them, as well. So, really, you're just encouraging the sheep to continue a natural forward flow. There's a lot you can do - more than you think - from within your part of the quadrant, and your dog is not restricted to any quadrant or spot. He can be wherever is best to control the sheep, and you can influence your side by your movements or your stick - so long as you don't stick your arm/hand/leg/whatever into the chute itself.

 

~ Gloria

[Mark Billadeau]

In other words, you and your dog still can influence the sheep in the chute by your presence. Stepping towards the sheep (you or your dog) in the chute will cause them to want to move away (down one chute, stop, back up, turn one direction or the other at the center of the cross, etc). The panels of the cross do not block your influence on the sheep.

 

 

[pucksfurcoat]

Thanks everyone for your thoughtful responses!

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Sheepdoggers,

 

My only UK win was a South Wales with a maltese cross and for several years I featured them at my trial (using farm rambouiletes). I found the maltese an engaging and difficult task with fresh sheep but somewhat unfair when sheep had to be rerun. Although the chute (almost always) opens on a visible path for that lead ewe to escape, no ewe likes to step into a space where her movement is constrained and she can't identify threats to her vulnerable throat and stomach. That's why it's hard to get that lead sheep in there. BUT, once that ewe learns the chute isn't dangerous she'll be much more willing to enter again which is why the cross chute is usually easier accomplished. She'll remember next time she approaches the contraption and IF, she's avoided it before she'll be more difficult and IF she's gone through, she'll be much easier. It is similar to circumstances at the pen : those ewes who've missed will try to miss again, those who went in aren't as nervous as the first time, but I think the maltese learning effect is much more pronounced. (Might be because here in the east, very few trials offer sheep unfamiliar with pens). At my maltese trials, the first run sheep were far more difficult than the 2nd run sheep and most 3rd run sheep (who by now had at least one ewe who'd gone through) went in easily. It might differ breed to breed - Welsh Mountain sheep hated the Maltese every time and dogged Kathadins accept them easily. Still, I'd be reluctant to offer a maltese again unless I had fresh sheep for every run.

 

Donald McCaig

[Eileen Stein]

And even if you have fresh sheep for every run, the later handlers/dogs are at an advantage because the more sheep have gone through the cross, the more sheepy it smells to the later sheep and the more willing they are to go in. And you don't want to make running order more of a factor influencing a trial's outcome if you can help it. But it's a fun obstacle to work on.

 

Not sure I agree that the cross chute is usually easier, though.

[Shoofly]

Eileen, i agree with your observation but unfortunately that's just part of dog trialing. If you don't use the maltese cross because it's easier as the day goes on for the "sheepy smell", well, you could take out of the panels and pen for the same reason. I'm all for leveling the playing field as much as possible - which is why i argue against assigning dog names on the running order - but unfortunately some of it just can't be helped.

 

I do however, think the maltese cross is a great thing to work on at home, and hate to see one at a trial most of the time. I'm actually pretty good at the thing but too often there are a few sheep in the really dogged flocks that just aren't going to go in no matter what, and a few that want to go through no matter what. That, to me, makes it pretty unfair. But fresh sheep who learn from earlier runs about the cross, that doesn't bother me.

[Laurae]

I'm all for leveling the playing field as much as possible - which is why i argue against assigning dog names on the running order - but unfortunately some of it just can't be helped.

 

Robin, can you explain how not assigning dog names on the running order helps level the playing field? Was that a typo or am I missing something obvious?

[Shoofly]

IMO, choosing which dog to run when comes under strategy for a trial, and it can be pretty important. Say sheep are being rerun. If dog names are assigned, and you and i each have 2 dogs to run. Your better dog draws up second for you, and my better dog draws up first for me. All things being more or less equal (weather, etc.), you are gaining an advantage over me because your sheep are likely rerun for your better dog and you've had a "practice run" with your lesser dog, and i don't get either of those advantages, simply by luck of the draw.

 

Strategy for choosing which dog to run when comes into play with weather, heat, etc. etc.. It's really important i think. Taking dog names off the running order levels the playing field and takes that much more luck out of it.

[Eileen Stein]

Eileen, i agree with your observation but unfortunately that's just part of dog trialing. If you don't use the maltese cross because it's easier as the day goes on for the "sheepy smell", well, you could take out of the panels and pen for the same reason. I'm all for leveling the playing field as much as possible - which is why i argue against assigning dog names on the running order - but unfortunately some of it just can't be helped.

 

I dunno, Robin -- if you're all for leveling the playing field as much as possible, then I think you'd have to be reluctant to use something that intensifies the impact that running order has on the outcome. The maltese cross does this more than any other element -- much more so than the pen, much much more so than the panels, and totally compared to the shed. If we're going to add or substitute elements to the classic course, I think ideally they should present as much "equality of opportunity" as possible.

 

I'm actually pretty good at the thing but too often there are a few sheep in the really dogged flocks that just aren't going to go in no matter what, and a few that want to go through no matter what. That, to me, makes it pretty unfair.

 

But wait -- you could certainly say the same thing about the pen. That's the luck of the draw, and unavoidable, it seems to me. Sheep are individuals -- some are always going to be obliging and some are going to be "awkward." My problem with the maltese cross -- which I agree is a great thing to work on at home -- is that it intensifies the impact of running order, whereas to the extent possible we should try to minimize that.

 

I'm all for leveling the playing field as much as possible - which is why i argue against assigning dog names on the running order

 

You and I are never going to agree on this. To me, your position is way too handler-centered, whereas I tend to be dog-centered. Dog trialing is not meant to be a test of whose strategy in slotting their dog is best, and to the extent it becomes that, it distorts the equal assessment of the dogs. If dogs are assigned to the running order by name, over the long run luck will even out for all the dogs, which is the way it should be. If you can enhance one of your dogs' placement in the running order, over the long run luck will not even out for all the dogs. Handlers running one dog don't get to choose between two slots for their dog. Why does it make for a fairer trial of ALL the dogs if handlers running two dogs do get to choose between two slots for their better dog?

[juliepoudrier]

Handlers running one dog don't get to choose between two slots for their dog. Why does it make for a fairer trial of ALL the dogs if handlers running two dogs do get to choose between two slots for their better dog?

This argument makes sense to me.

 

J.

[Mark Billadeau]

There is no way to remove the impact of handler/trainer on how well a dog places in a trial. Allowing the handler to choose when each of their dogs run will have a very minor impact on placing compared who has trained and is running the dog. Placing should not be what is used to select dogs for breeding; placing does not tell the whole story on the dog's instincts/ability/genetics. Performance on various fields, handling of hard sheep (even groups you cannot place with), handling of different sheep, etc, should be used for breeding selection (breeding selection should be more sophisticated than about ribbons and ribbon color). Clearly a dog with the "right stuff" and handled well will often place; however, there will be dogs with the "right stuff" that do not place; and great handling can cover up holes in a dog. Placing is a team effort (with some luck) making it difficult for trial placing to be focused upon the dog without the handler.

 

The argument for allowing handlers to choose when their dogs run is one which only benefits those who have multiple dogs which then favors those who keep and travel with more dogs. However, if placing is not used for breeding selection, then this will only impact the handler not the dog.

[Eileen Stein]

There is no way to remove the impact of handler/trainer on how well a dog places in a trial. . . . Placing is a team effort (with some luck) making it difficult for placing to be focused upon the dog without the handler.

 

Of course it's a team effort, and of course the quality of training and handling will have an impact on placement. But training and handling do indeed reflect teamwork -- the trainer's ability to train and the dog's ability to learn, the handler's ability to perceive and direct and the dog's ability to perceive and respond. OTOH, the strategy of choosing which of two slots to run your dog in has nothing to do with teamwork or with the dog, or with anything that is supposed to be tested by a dog trial. Ideally, it would be eliminated from the equation so it doesn't affect the outcome.

 

(ETA: Also, drawing by dog's name IS drawing by team, since the handler comes along with the dog. Drawing by handler's name is NOT drawing by team, since many handlers enter more than one dog, while no dog enters more than one handler. )

 

Certainly I agree with you that "placing does not tell the whole story on the dog's instincts/ability/genetics," and that performance is paramount for the good breeder. But I don't see how that bears on the question of whether drawing by dog's name does or does not tend to level the playing field.

 

The argument for allowing handlers to choose when their dogs run is one which only benefits those who have multiple dogs which then favors those who keep and travel with more dogs. However, if placing is not used for breeding selection, then this will only impact the handler not the dog.

 

I doubt whether any serious breeder breeds solely on placements, but I doubt whether anyone ignores them either. A dog who consistently wins or places high in many trials on various fields, handling challenging sheep, handling different types of sheep, etc., in trials with competent judges is almost always a good dog, deserving of and earning respect even from those who did not have a chance to watch the dog perform in those trials. It may not be the right dog for any particular breeding, but I think few people, breeders included, would say that a record like that does not speak to the quality of the dog. So in that sense placement does impact the dog. (It can also impact the dog in more mundane ways, I suppose -- whether a dog gets to compete in those varied, hard trials may depend on whether its handler can afford to enter and travel to them, which in turn may depend on past placements and chances of future placements.)

[juliepoudrier]

The argument for allowing handlers to choose when their dogs run is one which only benefits those who have multiple dogs which then favors those who keep and travel with more dogs. However, if placing is not used for breeding selection, then this will only impact the handler not the dog.

True that it affects the handler and not the dog. But if handler A can choose when to run a particular dog in order to improve the chances of placing, it affects things like payback, points toward finals, etc. Person B, who runs just one dog, has to take the luck of the draw and can gain no advantage toward placing by having additional choices about when to run a dog.

 

I know there are some people who probably breed solely on whether a dog wins or not, but I doubt that's more than an uneducated minority (uneducated meaning that they believe a placement is more important than the dog's qualities and how those qualities would mesh with the potential breeder's own dog). So for the rest of competitors, the real advantage to being able to strategically choose when to run which dog becomes about increasing the *handler's* odds of winning money or gaining points, IMO. And I don't know why handlers with multiple dogs should be given that strategic advantage.

 

J.

[Mark Billadeau]

But I don't see how that bears on the question of whether drawing by dog's name does or does not tend to level the playing field.

You said trials should be about the dog not handler strategy since trials will be used for breeding selection.

 

What I'm saying is your argument only holds up IF placing (ribbons) at trials were for breeding selection. Your complaint is that by allowing handlers to choose their dog they have an advantage, which is true, but only in how well they will place not how well the team handles the situations they are given.

 

Julie's complaint follows through with the same logic; allowing handlers to choose their dogs impacts how well the team can place not how well the team handles the situations they are given. In reality, trials are more for the handlers and their ego than it is about selection of breeding (based upon fairness complaints); which is okay. This is what we've chosen to make trials. If trials were primarily about selection of breeding there would be no prizes; and no one would care when their dogs ran, if the sheep were even, etc.; the focus would be 100% about how well each team handled the situations they were given.

 

The entire discussion about leveling the playing field at a trial is all about the handler and not about the dog. So let's be honest about why we want the playing field leveled; we want to have a fair shot at placing, winning prizes, ribbons, points to the finals, glory, ego boost etc.

 

For full disclosure, I like to win and like anything that helps my odds of winning. But that is about me and not my dogs. They don't care if we win, only if we run.

[Shoofly]

Every time this comes up, someone brings up the handlers who only run one dog and i feel that is a distraction to the argument. First, there are only a handful of single dog handlers at most trials. Second, you're choosing (strategizing, if you will) to only run one dog. No one forces you to.

 

Take single dog handlers out of the discussion and explain to me how it's more fair (to the handler, to the team, for the competition) for dog names to be assigned in a running order.

[Mark Billadeau]

Trials are a great venue to show case the skills of each team to handle terrain, sheep, and situations not necessarily available at home and to do so in the presence of witnesses; however, once we start talking about scoring, points, placings, ribbons, prizes, etc it is all about handlers and their egos.

[Sue R]

Thank you, all, for making this an intelligent and educational topic about trials, obstacles, and strategy - and a few other things.

 

Too bad we don't have good, working dog discussions like this very often.