Don't worry Robyn, you will have G-Four racing soon.
More chances to win.

Why not just use boxes 1 to 6, and make the emergencies numbers 7 & 8, instead of 9 & 10 ?

It is debatable, but there is the probably the same amount of interference in a six dog field, regardless of which two boxes are left empty.

Get rid of "vacant box", it is not a good look.

When you trial 2 dogs , do you put them in 1,2 ....?
No
You gap em , why ? Its safer

Saying 8 dogs is no different to 6 is like saying 10 is no different to 8
Please wake up !

Its about offering the safety to these athletes , it wont work all the time but you cant say it doesnt work straight out .
How do you know if the 2 dogs that arent in would have made a shabby 6 dog race even worse ?? You cant coz you dont know
Its common sense the less runners belting into the first corner statistically has to be better off then having more !

Sorry to inconvenience you having to wait an extra 2 days to race your racer that is sitting at home in one piece

Unbelievable

Extra money and effort for safety resulting in more complaints , go figure .....?

I think youd find putting Dogs in their appropriate boxes ie railing or wide runners would fix most problems and should be priority instead of deciding which boxes are left vacant, dont you think ?

Wouldnt it be nice knowing every week you turn up with a railer you are going to be in
1,2 or 3 and vice versa outside boxes
No more researching what dogs do from which boxes

No that would be to smart

Watch Dapto rc 1 ....... carnage dogs everywhere , rail crashes in outside boxes?
Then watch Sandown rc 4 , corner start also

It can help having 6 dog fields

Albion Park race 3 ,trouble home turn 8 runners

Sandown race 4 ,6 runners good

Angle park rc 2 ,6 runners 1 check

Warrnambool rc 8 ,6 runners 1 check from the 8 wanting the rail

6 races all up , 3 full fields with 30-50% of fields taken out
Against 3 races with 6 runners for 2 single checks and 90% of all fields getting their chances

To say there is no difference from 8 to 6 ?????? We are watching 2 very different things
Even with the obvious observation that when to forces collide from more space
It is going to be greater
Id rather that risk any day going from the aboves short but clear cut info

Note rc 3 angle park 6 runners ....a fall as I was about to post this
Was not due to a space collision hit , the 8 wanted the rail just in front of the 7
Very unlucky 7 , I hope your boy is ok , sorry to all connections ,poor bugger
The 8 goes on to win with clear running

Conclusion
There is more chance of the whole field getting their chance in 6 dog fields
The 2 single checks came from outside boxes wanting the inside
Seed them and have 6 dog fields and we would finally be putting our priorities in the correct place for our greys and all concerned

Cheers good luck

Ps warrnambool rc 9 8 runners .... a disgrace , fair dinkum
Dapto rc 4 6 runners no checks ,perfect ! And with random boxes vacant

Chalk and cheese

Back when I was doing the "Racing Manager" function at Strathalbyn I proposed 6 dog fields of heats into an 8 dog final and it got cruched/torn down by the authority. Fast forward to now and g6 is a big hoopla.

Back when I proposed the notion of reduced field heats into full field finals it was to entice people to come into the heats because they had a 50-50 chance of walking away with prizemoney even if they didnt make the final.

But what do I know, I am only a dimwhit participant apparently and obviously out of touch with the people that voted me into the role unlike the appointed positions within well you know where. Glad to to have exited the state and to move on with my life. Now I get to focus on the dogs without the distraction of politics and egos.

(I'll footnote what I wrote above though to simply state that as a commercial enterprise, SA racing 6 dog fields maximizes race count while reducing dog numbers required. From their point of view, 12 race cards despite less dogs means more mug punters and retains sky channel coverage rights. It's savy commercially even if disadvantaging participants and ultimately self defeating as they lose sight of their supply chain - that would be trainers and dogs)

Gawler today. One race had 5 dogs in it and one fell. Another race had 6 dogs in it and one fell.
You can have G-two racing if you like but as long as you have stupid suicide bend starts, there will be interference.

Angle Park R11 on June 20 - half the 6 dog field got around without injury. It's simply not about the number of dogs racing for welfare outcomes, it's about first sectionals into the bend.

Most trainers that have even educated their own pups know that if they trial two quick kennel mates together, they'll manage to hamper and find each other at the first turn. It's not rocket science, it's not track design, it's a bunching effect caused by putting similar beginners into a field all racing to the first turn. And you see it every day on any track across the world. Mix up the early sectional spread in a race and it's as clear as night and day.

Hence seeding Dogs

Jason Ill agree to disagree

Im never going to say collisions wont happen with less numbers
Its racing , anything that can happen probably will

But the card you mention is a 12 card meet
Go through every race , there are 11 other races that night , and guess what
Besides rc 8 where the fav gets a rub on first turn , the whole meet went about with not one check ........ NOT ONE CHECK

Can you show me a meet where 8 runners dont collide for half of the meet ?

11 out of 12 races were clean , and further more watch races 2 and 7 for what g6 racing really offers

Numbers do count ,all thats left is seeding Dogs and then we have provided the safest environment we can for these chasers

No matter how many one off collisions you can show me , its irrelevant
When I can show you over 90% of a meet had clean racing

Thats night and day

I dont believe less dogs engaged on a per meeting basis to be a sustainable outcome but by this logic, we may as well make all meetings coursing meetings (Speedstar/match racing) while we're at it. Also just ask the trainers in SA with last start place-getters that can't obtain a run for their dogs at the G-six meetings because of the reduced field sizes.

Statistically less dogs is less to be implicated in a bunch up so the point you made only proves less dogs, less injuries. I can achieve the same running only an 8 race card or running fortnightly versus weekly. Lies lies and statistics ;)

Anyway a full 12 race program assuming no scratchings at APK g-Six only requires 72 dogs. I can run a 9 race card of 8 dog fields to obtain the same number of dogs engaged. So until it is beyond doubt that injuries/dogs engaged is any different, no I don't believe this is a welfare outcome, just a commercial one that is disenfranchising suppliers that can't even gain a start over there nowadays despite having placed or won recently.

What does a dog or many having a very unfortunate accident have anything to do with my belief or feelings as stated in above passages ?

Like I said , you posting or singling out every time there is this result (which is inevitable) is proving what ???
6 is no different to 8 ?
How come you cant or are ignoring there was 11 other races that were 100% clean
And you still ask until there is proof ???

Yeh right ...... didnt that just answer or provide the proof

Why havent you acknowledged the need for seeding also ? G6 is only half of the remedy

Thats great you believe stats are being twisted in your eyes as runs per week are less Or volume per card favours this stat

I think its time to knock the little fellow on your shoulder off whos talking in your ear mate and actually just look at each independent race for what it is , didnt you say you left all that political bullshyt behind ?

You start by asking if Id feel different if it was my dog that was injured or other ?

The difference between me and you is I realise every time I box my dog that Im rolling the dice and dont take the product or my mate for granted , so with that in mind
Why dont you ask every one who gives a shyt about their dog if they had a choice to roll the dice against 5 or 7 others ? What would they pick ? What would you pick Jason ?

Isnt 3 meetings a week at angle park g6 style the same as 2 city meetings like everywhere else in every state ?
Around 200 runners isnt it Jason that equates too ?

Just curious as to your theory on less runners better stats , as this is ultimately wrong with what is on offer at present , correct me if Im reading 3 meetings incorrect

Zero difference laughable , how would I feel ? Stats man !!!! Is there anything worse

Its not maths hey , its a bunch of crazy natural moving athletes at top speed
Watch the race and its anomalies

ps: 69 dogs raced at APK on June 20 because R9,10 and 12 only fielded 5 dogs per race. 3 dogs walked away injured/suspended according to official records for the program. 3/69 is not great at all statistically. Fielding an entire program with only 69 dogs to build a meeting is shameful in my opinion. But hey, its just an opinion. To each their own.

Part of that would be some assessment of injuries or falls but even that would be arguable. Going in to the experiment my guess is that 6 runners are better at the jump but, after that, it matters little. Highly trained and keen dogs want to get to the lead and will push and shove trying to get there - whether in the lead or at the back. The majority of falls occur when A tries to get past B; the minority when C is falling back in the field. The layout of the track may or may not influence that outcome but is a separate deal requiring separate analysis.

The X factor is the nature of the individual dog - crashing to the rail, veering to the outside, inexperienced, field sense, etc etc. This is a significant element but can be edited out if you try hard enough. (Yes, seeding would help but it is still a very subjective area and messy administratively). This is why the GRV experiment with 6-dog Maiden fields is a waste of space and time. If they don't know how to race how can you judge their habits?

Whatever, we will need a fully detailed report from GRSA at the end of the trial. That should include a summary of betting data as well, although that has its own limitations.

This is why I disagree with going to the end of any format especially sports and reading the stats findings

In rugby league at present they have abandoned the chance of going from 8 interchange to 6

Here is their stats findings ...... players are playing longer careers then ever ,deemed safer
Players with more energy arent at a greater risk of someone who is tired and potentially injuring someone else through fatigue
Smaller players feel safer with larger bodies next to them or against them with fresher legs as tired ones could cause damage to little fellas taking advantage of larger man getting tired

These are the stats complied at the end of the year every year for the past 5 years

What a joke and a crock of boloney

The game has never been worse to watch , players have never been in more danger due to everyone being fresh , harder impact ,more concussions from heavy impact or slamming or wrestling

If your not getting the drift ...... watch every game and a blind man could see , fatigue is an essential element to open the game up and also nullify the monstrous or powerful collisions or hits or wrestling ..... stats will never ever display this ,ever !
End result , a game that is boring predictable and more and more concussions to come !

Back greyhound racing and a wait till the end with stats for a conclusion or
Doing it race by race is pointless theory

Patterns emerge 1 by 1 , if not assessed or scrutinised in this procedure you will be missing the most vital parts that give you an end result that is demonstrated by one single figure ?

That figure does not represent the inbetweens of how you arrive at a conclusion let alone be able to make a judgment for the future

Regardless of whether its political or shortage of numbers how g6 has come about , angle park is still producing the same volume as to other states in their city tracks !
Again ...... they have not decreased in comparison to the rest of Aust the volume of runs held every week at their city track

Seeding is vital , and it wouldnt be a messy admin job at all
Every dog is recorded every race in where its postion is in the race as they run
Placing an R(rail) M(middle)W(wide) on each of its runs when jumping and then picked accordingly for box selection when nommed is as simple as it gets ?

Ironically this procedure also needs to done per race not after a 12 week debacle of studying stats

Question in regards to grv testing deemed waste of time

If there is a pack of unlearned any animal what would be the most logical method in reaching an outcome of reaching the least chance of hits or injuries

Running 2 at a time or running 10 together
Im not suggesting having match races , Im pointing out best and worst cases thus being extreme from both ends

Its quite clear 10 runners will end in one way , more times then 2 done in the same amount of tests , its fact !

Having 8 is closer and more likely to arrive at this extreme example then having 6

Pts in nsw are done with 1,2,3 or 4 runners with learning chasers yet to race
Its annoying for trainers and owners for financial reasons but in regards to cleaner racing , saying its a waste of time is wrong and couldnt be further from the truth

A study in a state where no one even knows including the trainer , what they will do in a field or even if theyve been in a field due to no pt is pointless before you have even begun its research

Its not rocket science that progression is key , but obviously due to wages prize money and betting it has to be altered

As you say time will tell on many things

Cheers