Task 13 Discussion 1

Walter & jGroup...

[GH] Attached as a jpg -Bernd Zeische has sent a picture of his roll cast tool made by altering a screwdriver. His instruction : " The leader should come in on the open side and leave out on the closed side."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[GH] Now for discussion on Task 13. From Craig Buckbee :

gordy,

(___) Loops not similar front to back.

would a 170º cast (a la Chase Jablonski or Rick Hartman) be accepted?

curious craig

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[GH] Craig,

That has not come up in my experience .... but I can see that it might.

I think most examiners would accept those styles and methods. These two casters demonstrate enviable performance and results. However, they are top line competition distance casters.

As a lead examiner, I would question two things :

1. Does the candidate really need these rather extreme methods to reach 85 feet ?

2. Since those techniques are used by expert competition distance casters, I'd want to know if the candidate would actually be teaching students at a mid to advanced level to do it that way.

This would come up if I pretended to be a student and asked him to teach me distance casting.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[GH] From Ckling Ling,

Hi Gordy,

Will I be penalized if I use a 170 back cast and a normal forward cast? Or a Belgian cast?

Ling

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[GH] My answer to Craig Buckbee pertains with respect to the 170 cast.

The so-called "Belgian cast" implies the use of a dramatic change in rod planes between the back cast and the forward cast which, I think, thwarts the intent of the Task. To me this is intended to be a demonstration of a non-specialized or standard distance cast suitable for teaching students. The back cast loops would be entirely different from the forward cast loops rather that similar.

An expert caster could probably make the 85' distance easily with a back cast presentation. Would I accept that even if it were done smoothly and easily ? No. Again, NO. Peter Hayes of Tasmania showed me a powerful distance cast done easily and smoothly with a very large continuous tension back cast loop and a tight forward loop. Impressive, but not what is expected on task 13.

Unusual or dramatic variations or perturbations of a standard "straight line overhead" distance cast are not acceptable for this task, as I see it.

The MCI Testing Committee has become aware of the fact that even when expert casters perform this task that the back cast loops are almost always a bit larger than the forward loops. I think this is why they use the word, "similar" in one reason for failure: " (___) Loops not similar front to back" rather than a more stringent term such as, "the same" or "identical".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[GH] From Walter Simbirski :

Gordy,

A couple of comments:

1. Your statement: "Their style of casting involved bringing the rod tip way back as part of the stroke... not afterward. ",

is an interesting observation. I think this is something that confuses many beginner casters when watching an elite

caster. We teach that the stop determines where the line is going to go as well as the loop size.

A beginner caster watching the elite caster sees what appears to be the rod stopping nearly horizontally but the line travels horizontally rather than being thrown into the ground. They then wonder why they can't do the same thing.

The issue is that it is where the rod unloads that determines what direction the line will go. The rod may not physically stop until significantly later. The size of the loop is determined by how far the rod tip dips below the slp after unloading and with stops that appear to be nearly 180 degrees apart the beginner has been told to expect huge loops while the elite caster is using other methods to prevent the loops from getting large.

2. In watching Steve Rajeff's cast it appears that he is actually casting downhill (i.e. high back trajectory with a

low forward trajectory). Is that the case? This would make sense based on discussions I've had with Mac Brown,

the paper we've seen previously about the terminal speed of falling fly line, and as a means of converting potential

energy to casting distance.

Cheers

Walter

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[GH] Walter,

Perhaps. Without seeing more of the whole cast from a more distant vantage point, I can't be sure.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~