Quote:
Originally Posted by Przemek
Right.. but... it means that males 65cm tall and higher are typical and below 65cm are too short. It's only up to the judge to evaluate how big fault the 1cm is for him.
|
Sorry Przemek, you are not right. 65 cm by males and 60 cm by females are MINIMUM. So says standard. Its not about "typical" or not. Its MINIMUM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Przemek
It's obviously a fault according to standard but the same is with dark eyes, big ears, wrong body indexes. It's written "minimum 65cm" but it also written for example "Length of muzzle : Length of cranial region : 1 : 1.5" ... so what's about it? Does it mean that dog with the proportions of 1:1,49 should be disqualified or maybe 1:1,45?? Or 1:1,33??  It's up to the judge... "minimum 65cm" means that the judge has no right to say that the dog with 65,5cm is too short. It's typical according to standard since it 65cm or higher. |
By e.g. body format is not "minimum" border (same by head format). Its written in faults, whats is wrong. Andy by this two mesurements must judge valuate, but by hight is it clear "minimum" is "minimum". And if dog dont reach minimum high, according not to standard and must get P14.