ILR Show Division

PERFORMANCE COMMITTEE Minutes
April 9, 2009

Meeting called to order 8:05 EST

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 meeting’s 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 year.

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

Tie Breakers

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 to use.

For tiebreakers, in the instance UAP points are used, it could list as follows:

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

Performance Scoring

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 scoring:

The important points for scoring performance is with a system that can:

1.  Provide a meaningful measure to level of achievement and performance.

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 and llama.

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 equipment.
The judge will walk the courses with the exhibitors, (no animals).

11. Animals that appear to be a safety concern to the handlers or themselves can be removed at Show Management and Judge’s discretion.

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 faults.

Tami noted she would begin work on a tabulation sheet draft for Open, Novice/Advanced Performance Champions, and will send this around soon.

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 review.

Next meeting:

May 7, 2009 at 8pm EST

Meeting adjourned 10:05 EST

Respectfully submitted,
Jim Krowka
Secretary