What Constitutes Interference In A Trial?

[big swill]

Being that I'm starting out in field trials this year, and have seen interference referred to on a couple of other threads, I was wondering what constitutes both interference by a dog and a handler in a field trial. I'm not talking about the obvious stuff, but the things that could (should?) be deemed interference by the judge(s).

[shags]

On the handler's part, hacking could be interference. In walking stakes, burying the other handler; in HB stakes, improper use of the horse to intimidate.

For dogs, bumping, tailing, head tailing, fighting, stealing point, refusing a back.

[Sharon]

On the handler's part, hacking could be interference. In walking stakes, burying the other handler; in HB stakes, improper use of the horse to intimidate.

For dogs, bumping, tailing, head tailing, fighting, stealing point, refusing a back.

Most annoying one to me.
Also the walking handlers are to keep a reasonable pace. I'm 5'2 and braced with a 6 foot guy with long legs can be a problem. The judge is to watch for this but I still end up going at a fast trot for 30 minutes.

[larue]

I dont know if handler speed is looked at by judges,as a judge i am watching the dog,not the handler.When I walk and the dog is way out front along with the other dog/handler all I can say is,,my dog better stay broke..
Catching up in a walking trial is one of the hardest things to do,when your dog has bird work and goes to the front it can be a bitch.
But once again,the dog had better be broke,and he better honor.when they are they sure look nice when you are way back.