01/07/2026
Food for thought
One Judge’s Perspective: Just Because the Rules Say I Can Doesn’t Mean I Should
Level-appropriate search design depends on the total challenge, not whether each individual variable fits inside the rulebook.
Rulebooks give us boundaries. They tell us what may be included in a class, including hide height, number of hides, time limits, search area requirements, accessibility, distractions, call criteria, qualifying requirements, and the written parameters that keep a search inside the rules of that organization. Those boundaries are necessary. They keep us from making things up as we go, which is generally preferred when people have paid entry fees and expect a recognizable sport to occur.
Those boundaries do not replace judgment. A rulebook can tell us whether something is allowed within the written criteria, but it cannot walk into the search area and evaluate the odor presentation on that day, under those conditions, for that level of dog and handler team. It cannot read the airflow, notice where odor is collecting, or decide whether the combined task still fits the class. That part still requires a human brain, preferably one that remembers odor has never once read the rulebook.
The question I keep coming back to is: can a dog with the skills expected at this level solve the total challenge here, today, under this rule set? The word “total” is doing a lot of work. A search is made of interacting variables: hide placement, hide height, depth, odor availability, airflow, temperature, surface material, search area shape, handler access, dog size, time pressure, distractions, unknowns, blank areas, number of hides, acceptable call area, scoring structure, and class expectations.
The dog does not solve a checklist. The dog solves the whole search. That is why a setup can fit inside the class requirements and still miss the level. A single variable can create the problem: odor may not be reasonably available under the conditions present that day, the acceptable call area may not match where odor is actually collecting, or a simple hide may become too difficult for a lower-level class if the environment overwhelms the odor presentation.
The other problem is accumulation. A search can be built from pieces that each seem reasonable on their own: appropriate hide height, reasonable search area size, permitted distractions, acceptable time limits, and a class that allows some ambiguity. The trouble starts when those pieces are combined without looking at the problem they create for the dog and handler.
One way I think about this is my Rule of 100. It is not literal math, and nobody needs to stand in a parking lot assigning spreadsheet points to a breeze, a threshold, and a suspicious chair. The idea is that every search has a difficulty budget. If the environment is already adding a lot, the odor puzzle may need to be simpler. If the area is straightforward, there may be room for a more interesting hide, distractor, or decision point. The goal is to balance the ingredients so the final search lands at the level being tested.
That is what I mean by overstacking. Overstacking happens when the combined challenge goes past 100. The individual variables may be appropriate on their own, but the final search asks for more than that level is supposed to require. The concern is not always one dramatic choice. It is the combined weight of several reasonable choices sitting in the same search. Each layer adds pressure until the dog and handler are being asked for too much skill, too much experience, or too much luck at the same time. Everything can look defensible in isolation while the whole search quietly turns into a dragon.
An upper-level search can drift this way quickly. Elevation, inaccessibility, difficult airflow, a larger area, time pressure, unknown hide count, distractions, and a nuanced call area may each be appropriate depending on the level and organization. Stack enough of them together under the wrong environmental conditions, and the final task can move past level appropriate even though each individual choice can be defended on paper.
The same idea applies at the beginning levels. A Novice or entry-level hide may be simple on paper, within the class requirements, and placed in what appears to be a normal location. But if odor is being pulled away, lifted above the dog, trapped, dispersed, or swallowed by the environment, the actual problem may no longer match the skills expected at that level. The question cannot stop at, “Is this allowed?” The better question is, “What did all of these variables create together?”
This is not specific to one organization. It applies anywhere the written rules, scoring structure, class expectations, and odor presentation have to meet in the same search area. Different organizations may allow similar concepts, but they do not always judge them, score them, or structure success the same way. Some formats require every hide to be found. Others use points. Different organizations may also have different expectations around unknown numbers of hides, blanks, inaccessible hides, handler calls, faults, or how much ambiguity belongs at each level.
AKC, NACSW, UKC, USCSS, and other organizations all involve dogs finding odor, but they do not all ask the same question in the same way. That means the same odor issue can carry a different consequence depending on the organization and class. A marginal hide in a format where every hide must be found can affect the team’s entire qualifying opportunity. In a points-based structure, that same issue may affect points, placement, or the quality of the search, while the team may still have a different path through the trial.
That does not make the issue irrelevant. It means the judge, CO, or person responsible for search design has to understand the rules, class expectations, and consequence structure of the format being judged. The acceptable call area is part of the total challenge. If odor is collecting away from source because of how the hide is presenting, judging has to account for the odor presentation, not only the physical location of the hide. The dog should be evaluated on the information available in the search area and within the criteria of that organization.
This requires more than knowing where the hide is. It requires understanding what the dog is actually working. It also requires noticing when the search that exists is not the search we intended to build. Sometimes conditions change. Sometimes the demo dog, dog in white, or pre-run evaluation gives information we need to take seriously. Sometimes the search looked good in our head and less good once odor, airflow, surfaces, and living animals got involved. Rude, but educational.
The same total-challenge lens applies in the other direction. A judge or CO may recognize difficult airflow, dog size concerns, environmental shifts, handler frustration, low pass rates, or challenging search conditions, and then remove too much. Understacking is the same error in reverse: the search falls far enough below 100 that it no longer evaluates the skills the class is supposed to measure. The search may be kind and accessible, but it may no longer ask the dog and handler to demonstrate the skills that level is meant to evaluate.
Fair searches can still be appropriately challenging. Upper-level searches should ask for upper-level skills. Lower-level searches should protect the clarity and accessibility appropriate for that stage. The goal is not to make every search easy, and it is not to stack every allowed variable until the search collapses under its own ambition. The goal is balance.
A balanced search fits the rule set, functions under the conditions present that day, gives the dog enough odor information to solve the problem, and still tests the skills required for that level. That requires judgment. It requires looking at the whole search, reading the odor presentation, understanding the class, watching the dogs in front of us, and being willing to adjust when the combined challenge no longer matches the intended question.
The final search is shaped by the rulebook, the environment, the organization’s structure, and the skills expected at that level. None of those can be evaluated in isolation. The judge or CO has to put them together and ask: can a dog with the skills expected at this level solve the total challenge here, today, under this rule set? And just as important: does the total challenge still require the skills this level is supposed to test?
Note: This is my perspective based on judging, training, and working across scent work rule sets and guidance, including AKC, NACSW, ASCA, and USCSS. Always check the current rulebook and official guidance for the organization you are judging or entering.
