ILR Show Division
PERFORMANCE COMMITTEE Minutes
April 9, 2009
Meeting called to order
Members attending: Tami Lash, Tom Rothering, Jim Krowka, Karen Baum
After approving the minutes from the last meeting, group
discussion began talking about how ILR-SD had good response
from attendees at Celebration.
Karen noted that the Virginia Classic went well.
Tami reminded our group that we need to compile something to
send for the upcoming GB meeting
Tuesday April 14, 2009.
If we can respond, or at least hear response from Debi and Patti
with thoughts on this meetings discussion, we can send in an
overview at least of our meeting. Jim noted this would be done
by the weekend.
A request from the Guidebook committee for rules and guidelines
had been made and Jim noted he informed the committee this
information was up on the ILR website in PDF form where updated
versions and could be downloaded for use by the rules committee.
Jim also noted concern and contact with the Rules committee that
since many committees were planning significant changes for
2010, that money for a published guidebook for 2009 should not
be spent, but rather it might be better presented in a PDF form
to avoid having to go through the expense of publication once
the changes in 2010 occurred. Jim noted that the Rules committee
shared this concern.
Tami reminded to send out to our group the updated versions of
our performance sheets that had been sent into Dar to the
committee. Jim noted this would be done.
Agenda ITEM 1
Performance champion award – follow UAP or point system or total scores
Jim noted that using UAP or point system numbers for determining a
performance champion at shows involved many inconsistencies and
inaccurate possibilities for measuring achievement of a
performance champion within a show and between shows. Tabulating
the performance champion from the total points in three
performance classes would provide a much more accurate measure
of achievement and would likely also avoid any ties.
Using placement in any class as a tie breaker was also discussed
and considered problematic as well, for example if the Freestyle
Obstacle trial was used but was considerably less difficult than
another trial, using this as a tie breaker might not measure
who was the best performer that day. Other similar examples were
brought up and discussed.
The group members present unanimously agreed that using the judges
scores to determine Performance champion would be the best
method for measured achievement, consistency and fairness.
However it was noted that since this is a new way if approved by
this committee and sent to the GB, the committee should include
that this be an option for show management to choose from this
The group recommendation could read something like this:
For tabulation of the
ILR-SD Open, Novice/Advanced Performance Champions, we recommend
tabulation be from the total score points earned from each
exhibitor's course-trial within the Performance Division. The
top three Performance scores will be tabulated for the
Performance Champions. For the year 2009 we will allow all ILR
shows to tabulate Open, Novice/Advanced Performance Champions
from the Placement Points accumulated through the use of the ILR
UAP, which is already in place.
It was noted the youth have developed their own method and are
using a table not utilizing the UAP point chart.
Realizing a standard method in determining all performance
champions would serve show management best, to avoid conflict
with the youth division the Performance committee will only deal
with rules for Open, Novice/Advanced Performance Champions.
Agenda Item # 2
It would be unlikely that ties would occur using the total points
from the judges score cards for determining Performance
Champion. However, in the event that occurred, members thought
that the score from the Freestyle obstacle trial might be good
For tiebreakers, in the instance UAP points are used, it could list
1. First tiebreaker would
be adding the top three overall scores.
2. Second tiebreaker
Companion PR score.
3. Third tiebreaker
Freestyle Obstacle score.
Agenda Item #3
Considerable meeting discussion time was spent on Performance
Scoring and began with work from the guides and suggestions Jim
had previously sent around to us. Not everyone had this
document, so Jim re sent this out during the meeting. Members
present unanimously agreed with the following guidelines for
The important points for scoring performance is with a system that
1. Provide a meaningful measure to level of achievement and
2. Reduces the potential for subjectivity and ambiguity.
3. Provides for consistency regardless of judge, location or
number of llamas in the class or trial and between levels of
difficulty of the trials.
The premise of scoring llama trials is to evaluate the relationship
developed between handler and llama by assessing handler skill,
llama manageability, trust and willingness to negotiate
prescribed maneuvers, obstacles and requests from the human
handler. The premise of this system of scoring is to provide a
consistent measure of performance and to minimize subjective
interpretation of performance.
Definitions and guidelines
1. Each task begins with a possible 10 points; points are
deducted as faults occur per task.
2. The llama with the highest score wins the class.
3. There are two categories of faults- Handler Faults and
Llama faults which consist of minor and major faults.
4. Faults are assigned points and graded by the level of
resistance or avoidance by the llama and effort required by
handler to correct resistance and/or negotiate tasks. Safety
fault points are rated on degree of potential danger to human
5. Fault points will be deducted from the total possible score
of 10 for each task when they occur within each task.
6. Handler and llama should walk together freely, with llama
on a loose lead. This includes all approaches and entries to
tasks, leaving tasks and travel in between.
7. A cue is defined as a signal by the handler to communicate
an intention to the llama. Cues delivered by gestures or by
voice will be allowed. Lead rope cues requiring the lead to go
taunt will be considered a fault. (Clicker and food rewards are
not allowed on course)
8. Point levels can be utilized for placement or for
advancement between levels of performance.
9. Judges will select which tasks will be used as tiebreakers
within each course-trial.
10. Safety is a main concern. All contact surfaces must be
treated to prevent slipping.
The judge has the final decision on course safety, and
The judge will walk the courses with the exhibitors, (no
11. Animals that appear to be a safety concern to the handlers
or themselves can be removed at Show Management and Judges
12. Harshness in communication will be considered a fault.
Tami noted that she will be re-sending the performance scoring
sheet previously sent out that some did not have the time to go
over. This sheet is provided to help the committee move into the
next process involving determining and assigning point values to
Tami noted she would begin work on a tabulation sheet draft for
Open, Novice/Advanced Performance Champions, and will send this
The members present agreed to work from here on email conversation
in the hope to have this completed within a 2 week timeframe in
order to send a draft to the Judge's committee and GB for
May 7, 2009 at