Balkan rules (1-2-3)
Cajun rules
You know what's even more interesting is the part right AFTER the green, highlighted area. Previously, it says a dog must mouth the other dog. It then says that when the dogs touch, you must release your dog. So many people think that when you release your dog, the scratch has been completed.
Take into account that you have to have a really good referee for this aspect. Lets say that you specify dogs must take holds. Dogs come together at say the 5 second mark, but the scratching dog hasn't taken hold. The referee MUST continue counting until the scratching dog takes hold. It doesn't matter if the dog being held takes hold or not as the onus is on the scratching dog to take hold to complete his scratch.
People really need to familiarize themselves with the rules. The out of hold count rule is one that confuses people also as most don't know it like they should.
Agreed.
I remember even Jack Kelly got it wrong. In a story he told, the scratching dog started licking the opponent ... and Kelly called it a "completed scratch." Kelly's reasoning was that "the tongue is part of the mouth, so the scratching dog mouthed the opponent."
This is where basic horse sense comes into play, or (as in contract law) "The Letter of The Law" versus "The Spirit of the Law."
Kelly was right as to "the letter" of the Cajun Rules, the tongue is part of the mouth. However, he was completely wrong as to the spirit of the Cajun Rules, as "mouthing" clearly means *biting* ... or intent to keep fighting ... and licking is a far cry from that
Jack
I don't think the rule has ever been changed here, persay. It's the simple fact that most people have never actually read the rules more than once, and they certainly don't understand a lot of it. Alot of the rules are passed down from person to person, word-of-mouth. I know it was to me until I tracked down an actual copy of the rules. It's just an interesting aspect that most people never realize is even in the rules.
Again, there is no official "change," but individuals always amend it as they (mis)interpret them. The only reason to "change the rules" in any individual contest is to watch the dog that hesitated fight a little bit longer ...
The entire idea is to stop the contest the moment when one dog gives an inkling of wanting to stop. Hell, even if you amend the rules, how many people want to keep a dog that took a 5-count? Not many.
Therefore, why not rule the contest over at the count of 1, like the original rules suggest? The fact of the matter is this: any # after 1 becomes arbitrary. Why not 12 seconds? Why not 60 seconds? Why not 3:40? Why not give the dog a day-and-a-half to heal, regroup, and consider his alternatives?
The creators of the Cajun Rules valued gameness most, and the lives of the dogs most, which is why the dog is required to go at once ... and not hesitate at any point after moving forward. The 3 unimpeachable advantages of this strict adherence is 1) it renders the most exacting of standards, 2) it results in the quickest of contests, and 3) it results in the greatest likelihood of saving the gamer dog.
Jack
I agree Jack. Good that you guys brought this up, i had no clue this was in the original rules. It was not in the last set i read.
I think its smart to make this kind of things clear with the 2 parties and the referee when making the contract.
I'd be interested to hear the reasoning behind the balkans 3 second out of holds rule.... Why they think this is better than Cajun rules.
From what i understood there was to much argues about not handling and or mishandles. And probably not enough correct judges to deal with that.
Why they think its better now is probably because its all they know, and it's so easy. Doesn't require any skill or experience
If you go by original to the tee. Look how many ppl should be culling there dogs. I see ppl keep dogs that should nvr be kept from there understanding. When teaching ours we go by original an cull to that process. But bet your ass in a match sum1 gonna want a rule changed to a degree.