“Each course should require a balance of skill and speed." FCI Agility Regulations 2018, p. 3

Original Source (in German): AgilityLive Sept./Okt. 2019, S. 8 - 15. Big thanks to Gaby Grohovaz (ZA) for translation!

The FCI Agility Rules contain, even in the latest version of 2018, the clear instruction for the judges to balance "skill" (i.e. technical aspects) with "speed" in their course design.

The design of a course, that is the placement of obstacles and the resulting path of the dog, is largely left to each judge's imagination. The distance between the obstacles has to be a minimum of 5 meters (4 in Small) and a maximum of 7 meters. These distances are not seen as "should" or "could", but are non-negotiable within the rules.

Each judge will develop over time their own signature style, (their own course design hand writing so to speak). That the style differs from judge to judge is overall positive, as Sporting disciplines can only grow through diversity. Nevertheless, trends develop arising from specific elements which judges start to copy and adopt (e.g. go-round) and these then become a non-compulsory but generally accepted Standard element.

One of the most obvious and strongest trends over the past years must surely be the above mentioned balance between speed and skill which has shifted noticeably towards speed.

Bernd Hüppe

Ever more speed and less skill

One of the most obvious and strongest trends over the past years must surely be the above-mentioned balance between speed and skill which has shifted noticeably towards speed. Course design which allows dogs to manoeuvre at higher speeds due to greater distances between obstacles, as well as partially fewer and less acute changes of direction result in handlers not facing the question how best to handle a sequence (e.g. which type of cross to use), but rather the fastest way for the handler to reach key positions within the course. The fact that the maximum distances between obstacles frequently get transgressed in this type of open course design is a side effect of this trend.

Feeling the pressure resulting from the high expectation of "speed handlers", more and more judges are circumventing and openly ignoring the rules regarding maximum distances. When the measuring wheel reads more than the allowed 220 meters for the total course length, the number will casually be adjusted downwards with a sheepish grin and a knowing wink. Consequences are not considered, as they are not catered for.

The choice of words in the FCI rules update of 2018 regarding the distance between obstacles has shown to be unfortunate. The purpose had been to allow more space and better lines for the dog in the ever more popular "go round" elements, an overall increase of the course length had never been the intention.

Do we even want this?

If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough.

Mario Andretti

Can the current speed direction continue and - more importantly - do we even want this?

Bernd Hüppe

Today we therefore have a type of "Speed-alliance" between judges who push the boundaries of what is allowed and not seldom transgress them, and those speed intoxicated handlers who can keep up with the increasing speed, sometimes only just, on both technical skill as well as running ability.

Despite the obvious attraction for dogs, handlers and judges the question still needs to be asked, what potential side effects the increased speed levels have and what the next development in this process could be. Can the current speed direction continue and - more importantly - do we even want this?

More Speed = higher accident risk + higher overall stress on the body!

It is obvious that higher speed is associated with a potentially higher risk in accidents involving obstacles (possibly also caused by handling mistakes), as well as an overall higher burden on the dog's body. It is quite likely that top handlers will be able to minimize additional stress on their dog's body even at highest speeds by choosing the smoothest lines and precise timing, however the time frame for those (handling) actions becomes increasingly smaller. And who can claim to always have optimal lines and optimal timing?

The higher the speed the higher are the effects on the dog's body of even minor fuzzy handling actions - usually late cues.

It is pointless bringing up examples of dangerous situations also at slower speeds, either due to bad course design (judge) or bad handling (handler), or raising the point that some sequences will be strenuous on the dog even at medium speeds.

Top handlers at international level are able to produce lots of "clear rounds" in both Agility and Jumping with their exquisitely trained dogs and based on their own physical abilities. Therefore there is a pre-programmed (a priori) resistance to any type of speed reduction or even speed limit within this group.

Part of these "speed faction" include handlers who are very athletic or are strong sprinters, handlers with very fast dogs or dogs who don't like to collect, or dogs with long strides. Acute changes in direction are not very welcome in this group, neither is a reduction of speed (for example with a collection cue) which is also seen as undesirable.

Favoured on the other hand are for example sequences in which the dogwalk can be used primarily as an acceleration obstacle with basically straight lines to the next obstacle.

So, why limit speed? Looking at other types of Sports (Formula 1, Ski Jumping / Flying etc.) it becomes clear that in the battle for ever-higher speeds and world records setting limits early on to reduce risks is sensible. In Agility especially the judges will be playing a key role in this. They however usually react quite touchy at any attempts to restrict their course designs.

There is more to life than simply increasing its speed.

Mahatma Ghandi

The dogs have become increasingly better trained and faster. Are there natural limits or is this unstoppable?

How should this work?

Sticking to the existing maximum distances would already act speed limiting. Further elements for a moderate speed reduction would perhaps be...

• reduced use of straight tunnels

• more frequent changes in direction rather than (almost) straight lines

• stronger changes of direction after the dog walk (but keeping a fluent line for the dog, no "hard turn")

• more frequent use of "Turning jumps" (approx. 180 degrees turn)

All this would already be possible at present on a voluntary basis.

Currently judges feel no particular pressure to reduce speed but they do feel the expectation of the "speed faction" for fast running courses. In the age of FB and Co judges' stiles and preferences are transparent and easily checkable. Thus it may well be possible that some judges will keep their popularity in mind when designing courses (= chances to be invited to judge large international events) and will design particularly open, wide and flowing high-speed courses.

In some Sport disciplines reconsideration of trends only happened after serious accidents took place. Let's hope Agility will be spared.

Berndt Hüppe

The obstacles are already much improved

When asking the question what particular dangers a "high-speed-dog" is exposed to on a course, one tends to immediately focus on the obstacles. Thankfully much has been achieved over the past years in the design of obstacles for safety and load even at high speeds.

Contact elements with rubberized surface which are slip proof even in wet conditions have become standard. Frameless tires have resulted in the gratifying resurrection of an almost discarded obstacle. The number of flips/ summersaults inside tunnels (especially due to wet paws or wet tunnels) has thankfully decreased, even if the opinions of the full-grip tunnels are still divided. Further development of form-fitting tunnel bags has led to higher stability of the obstacle, even at high speeds and heavy dogs. Equally positive from a safety aspect for high speeds are the latest soft versions of long jumps and walls.

As part of the discussion on obstacle safety/dog health more and more speed- happy handlers are demanding changes to the obstacle themselves (wider Dog Walks, larger tunnel diameter, wider distance between poles in the weaves) or their use (e.g no strong bends of the tunnels, no acute angles at jumps to avoid shoulder injuries).

These demands for higher safety and to reduce health risks may have the best intentions, however, there is a real danger to shoot oneself in the foot, as straighter tunnels, wider dog walks and straighter lines for jumps would increase the speed and therefore increase the risk further.

What options are there for the future?

Option 1: Doing nothing

If nothing gets done and no intervention into the development of Agility is taken, the strong internal dynamics will continue. Further pressure for speed courses will result in the increased bid for maximal speed.

Training and even breed would have to follow this trend and doping could possibly become an increased point of discussion. In some Sport disciplines reconsideration of trends only happened after serious accidents took place. Let's hope Agility will be spared.

Option 2: Rule changes

Another option would be to regularly set boundaries. This would entail for FCI to give clear signals, which could then be followed by National bodies.

The FCI Agility Commission has in the past unfortunately never been seen as actively giving direction for the framework of Agility, but has limited itself to react to acutely arising problems. A basic discussion how to encourage desired developments and discourage less desirable trends early on has never taken place, applications and suggestions on those points were blocked.

Option 3: Change of thought at judges' level

The third option would be a serious re-think within the judging community of those judges who are aware of their responsibility in the further development of the Sport and who would have to resist the driving force of the "speed-faction". This would have to be seen as a long term project, which would have to be encouraged at various judges' meetings or judges' discussion groups.

However, without accidents (which may hopefully never happen) as obvious proof of the dangers of high speed, such change in thought will probably be excruciatingly slow.

Option 4: "Skill courses" as second Agility discipline

A last option would be the introduction of "skill courses" (see the explanation below) as an obvious juxtapose to the common speed courses. These could be started at any time as individual actions, provided organisers and judges could agree on certain framework parameters. These would not even require a change of the rules and regulations.

What is a "skill course"?

In Alpine skiing we know the speed events (Downhill Skiing and Super-G) and the technical events (Giant Slalom and Slalom). Each discipline is governed by clear parameters which strongly define the speeds of the different events. In Alpine Skiing the duality of speed and skill is securely anchored/cemented, some skiers will compete in several disciplines, while some are specialists.

In the past years the development in Agility has clearly moved towards the "Downhill + Super-G" assisted by according course design (distance between obstacles, lack of tight turns, ...).

Could Agility not also benefit from an additional more technically oriented discipline to the existing speed courses? Even if, for various reasons, the speed fans will immediately gather counter-arguments, could this not open new avenues in Agility? These would be new types of courses with somewhat different design elements in addition to the current courses, not a substitute.

The concept of "skill courses" should not at all be seen as a general plea for shorter distances and slower courses, it's simply one of the possible options for the future.

Bernd Hüppe

Guidelines for course design for a "skill course"

• Reduction of the distance between obstacles to 6 meters (center-center)

• Max 2 long tunnels (5-6 meters) with at least 90-degree curve

• Only 1 short tunnel (3-4 meters), straight, only used once

• Strong change of direction after Dog walk, either left or right; no "hard turn", see example course below (dog's line from 8 to 9)

• After 2 obstacles with (almost) straight lines a compulsory turn of at least 90 degrees

• At least 2 "Turning-jumps" (at least 180 degree turn)

The above are merely examples to show the direction in which a skill course could be conceptualised. The requirement of the judges to design a flowing course does not change between a speed and a skill course.

As with current speed courses, there will always be skill courses that will be nicer to run and those that will not be as nice. In either case however it is expected that the risk for the dog and the stress on the body will be reduced, due to the reduced speed.

Of course there will be attempts to downgrade skill courses with utterances along the lines of "boring", "not enough action", "no fun for the dog and the spectators", "dogs can't get going", etc. Again a comparison to Alpine skiing: Is the traditional Night-Slalom in Schladming (AUT) with approx 50 000 enthusiastic spectators a flop only because it isn't a speed event? It will soon become apparent that it will rest upon the judge to design a flowing skill course, but it will also depend upon the handler to find the correct line and run the dog on it.

Skill courses would also be attractive for those teams where either the dog or the handler or both are not competitive on speed courses. There could be a variety of show formats of only speed courses, or only skill courses or a combination of both. It is to be expected that specialists will develop who, for various reasons, will only compete in one type of event, but there will also be those who will become "All-Rounder".

One could award titles in both divisions, but also a "combination-title". The latter would be the most valuable of all, as it reflects the balance between speed and skill.

New Target Groups?

It is conceivable that this would open new prospects in Agility or at least reach target groups which are not drawn towards the tendency for increasing speed. The concept of "skill courses" should not at all be seen as a general plea for shorter distances and slower courses, it's simply one of the possible options for the future. A second discipline would help to take out some pressure of the further development when speed is not the one and only element in the focus any more.

This is a request to everyone whose heart is beating for Agility to think and consider which direction Agility should be taking. Or maybe which different directions?

Summary

In the past years we have to recognise an increasing speed orientation in international Agility. There is a tendency in course design towards speedy lines (many straight tunnels, few acute changes of direction...) and distances between obstacles at the upper limit of what is permitted - and sometimes already considerably beyond. More and more courses surprisingly have a total length of exactly 220 meters. :-) Basically, a modern course design with flowing and smooth lines is something very positive for the dogs, but in combination with higher speed the risk of accidents and the overall stress on the dog's body will increase.

We have to ask ourselves already today in which direction Agility should develop in the years to come. Doing nothing is the easiest but also most dangerous option, as it will be - besides other undesirable side effects - just a matter of time that serious accidents could happen.

The greatest responsibility will lie with the Agility judges as simply respecting existing distance rules would slightly reduce the average course speed right now. With few additional elements in course design (e.g. fewer straight tunnels, stronger changes of direction...) the top speed could be lowered without negative consequences on course flow or attractiveness.

Waiting for changes of the Agility Regulations will not be so helpful as even now more and more frequently existing regulations are not respected (without any sanctions) and rule changes in the past mostly were late and just adapting in details, but not pointing the way.

The concept of skill courses is neither a general plea for shorter distances and slower courses nor a solution for the described speed problems, it's just an additional option for Agility in the future.

Bernd Hüppe

The author: Bernd Hüppe has been in Agility for 29 years, still active handler (Vice-World Champion Team 2015), conducting handling seminars in many countries, International FCI-Judge (judged in more than 20 countries, 2 x AWC, 2 x EO), until 2016 Vice-President of the FCI Agility Commission