After judging for a couple of years, I changed my judging philosophy. At first, I was a "clean" judge - when a dog made a mistake, I eliminated it. Finally I realized that while I always placed clean dogs, sometimes I did not place the "best" dog. So then I began looking for what I thought was the beast dog and while I would not overlook a major mistake, say a big chase at flush, I would often overlook a smaller one. I remember once at Binghamton in NY state, my partner and I placed a dog first that whirled at flush to mark flight. After placements were announced, someone opined that the winner had chased at flush for 15 or 20 feet before he was stopped. I pointed out that yes, there was a dog that chase that far but the dog that chased was not used and that the winner's back feet had not moved appreciably. He had whirled to mark flight but had not chased and his solid back feet proved it. I said that I would not penalize a dog that marked flight but did not chase! That was one thing that George and I disagreed on. Nitchman had a b###h that would go up on her hind feet to mark flight if she was in cover and otherwise could not see the bird flush. Mr. Tracy felt that that dog should not be placed and I disagreed. "Don't field trials bear a relationship to hunting? And wouldn't you want a dog to mark flight so as to complete a retrieve?" Case closed imho!