Blog

During his run, Kevin Evans was putting us all to the test - even if we hadn't realised it.

The intention of the seminar was to study the finer points of judging and encourage debate - and Kevin, taking on a devil's advocate role, provided plenty of opportunity for that.

For starters he sent his dog on the outrun before he'd got to the post. He also walked into the shedding ring before the sheep and after the pen he crossed his tracks for the single, deliberately coming onto the wrong side of the sheep (a deliberate move because he had been marked down for doing the same thing at a trial in the past).

However, during the analysis either these faults hadn't been noticed by many, or he'd been given the benefit of the doubt.

So, was this the case because of a lapse in concentration ­- or because it was Kevin at the post and therefore he'd be guaranteed to have a good run?

When top handlers go to the post every Saturday there is always the expectation that they won't be the ones making mistakes and their names will appear in the results list.

Granted, they are the top handlers for a reason ­- because they consistently excel in their field (no pun intended).

They are the handlers that everyone watches and when things are going well, a hush descends on the field.

They are the people who, when you start out in trialling, everyone tells you to watch, helping to perpetuate their status as the celebs of the sheepdog world. Nothing beats watching a great run, with handler and dog in perfect working harmony. And astute observers can glean valuable knowledge from watching the best.

I'm not saying that top handlers will always get the best marks just because of who they are and that the rest of us may as well give up now, but are we sub-consciously thinking they are bound to have a good run before they even start?

Do you agree? I'd love to hear your views on this and judging and trials in general. Email me at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .