Okay, so here are two more hypothetical situations.
Scenario 1. Judge A has been friends with someone for over thirty years. They've shown together, trained dogs together, gone to dinner together, but eventually moved to separate states. Judge A and friend haven't trained together for seven months, but they remain steadfast friends.
Scenario 2. Judge B's husband spends a few minutes explaining a rally exercise to a newcomer at a club practice session. The practice is 4 weeks before a trial.
I'm sure you all see where I'm going with this. In scenario 1, there is an obvious conflict of interest, yet this type of situation is okay per the rules. With scenario 2, there is a negligible amount of conflict of interest, yet this situation is not okay.
Granted, with scenario 1, the friend would ideally decide not to show under Judge A. This has been my decision in the past. As I mentioned before, there are two retired judges in our training club. I have taken classes from them, asked them questions, trained with them, and consider them friends. I have never shown under either of them because I felt it would put them in an unethical situation.
I actually agree with the old wording that you shouldn't show under a judge you "regularly train" with. However, I think the new wording is just too vague . . .
PAM Guardyan's Gavin, VCD2, CDX, RE, AX, AXJ, AXP, AJP, TD
PACH Guardyan's Helki, CDX, PCDX, RA, MXP3, MXPB, MJP3, MJPB, CGCA
Guardyan's Kamikaze BN, CDX, RE, OAP, OJP
Guardyan's Kricket BN, CD, RN, NAP, OJP