Definition of a "roach" - Page 1

Since it seems to be the topic that never dies, let's clarify EXACTLY what a "roach" is. I cannot recall where I read it, I am scouring my GSD books for the source, but I have read a roach back defined as "an upward curvature of the spine past(or behind?) the wither".  A roach is a fault, and a serious one in my book, and do not assume because I have SL dogs I approve of it.

However, when looking at pictures that are often labeled as "roached", I often do not see a roach back myself, but rather over angulation in the rear coupled with steep and/or "falling off" croups. People see a steeply angulated dog and instantly label it as roach backed.  I think we should start a constructive discussion on the proper identification of faults, minus the finger pointing and name calling.

I don't want to turn this into a bashfest, this is informational. Can anyone point to a direct souce the very clearly defines a "roached back'? The quote I am looking for may have been in an old issue of USA, back when they used to have those great structural articles, I can't find it in my two favorite GSD books.  

This website has illustrations and definititions of a "roach back".  www.shawlein.com/The_Standard/04_The_Back/The_Back.html

She made the illustrated version of the GSDCA standard.

Well my memory was right about the possible source, I know I saw those diagrams published, I was fuzzy about the quote itself. Thanks so much!

In Am. S/, there is what is referred to as a "roach over the loin". The back starts out good from the whither but takes an upward turn over the (usually) very long loin area.

The "roach" in Ms. Shaws illustration appears very minimal to me.

JMHO,
Rik

It may be minimal (and it's only a drawing, not 1 of the many horrid real dogs), but it's there, and it's wrong.  German Shepherds should never have backs like that.

Let's try not squirming out of the discussion of rampant bad backs with the straw-man argument that it's "not a roach" by definition (as with the greyhounds).  Call it a roach, or banana, or a scoop for all I care.  Whatever it is, it's curved, and that's not right.

I always thought "roach" meant a curve in the back where it goes up after the wither, and that this is different than overangulation, short backs, steep/falling croups....I think I've seen a few dogs that have ALL of these problems and to me look completely unnatural, but I don't consider any indesirable form of curve/falling off in the back to automatically be "roached".  So in short, the way I was taught was that a "curve" does not necessarily equal a "roach".  Please correct me if I am wrong.

Silly, a roach is the butt of a joint.  How obvious was that joke.  I couldn't resist.  LOL

Liesjers, that is what I thought, too. According to the site linked, it is defined as ANY curvature of the spine.   Of course, a very minimal roach could be considered as slight a fault as a minimally short croup or upper arm, or a very slight amount of over or under angulation. After all, no dog is perfect, it's the extremes we must be careful of.

is this considered roached?

KCzaja, I stand corrected.  I guess I do not mind a bit of roach, it depends on the total conformation of the dog.  I really do NOT like when roaching is coupled with other things like over angulation and strange croups, and I don't like the roaching we were talking about where the back curves up past the wither.