|
Walter & Group...
[GH] From Ckling Ling on COD (Change of direction) casts :
Hi Gordy and Gary,
Thanks for the exercise, will try and answer despite not having much experience with river and trout fishing.
Issues in Cod: 1. Except for 180 Cod and Spey cast , most Cod cast have to contend with poor conformation to the 180 degree rule.
2. Due to non conforming to 180 degree rule, the effort expended in the delivery cast is often more than during the repositioning cast.
3. Using more curves than straights helps in Cod.
One caveat before answering the questions, while strictly not a cast, a strong enough wind blowing in a different direction to the water flow can be utilized for Cod, lift the line and let the wind blow into new direction, if that's where you want to go.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] I have chosen to include this string of messages between Peter Lami and Eric Cook, since as Masters, we have the responsibility of examining CCI candidates. It begins with a simple statement from Peter :
To All,
Gordy Hill and I both agree a Master candidate should know as many as 8 different change-of-direction casts.
Peter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eric,
Would you be willing to share your views and opinions with Gordy's Master Study Group?
Peter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter,
On Teaching
Yes, I agree as well. Any casting instructor should know multiple solutions to the variety of problems encountered by a fisherman. That is the essence of teaching skills. Giving your student the ability to solve problems and providing more of a base of solutions to solve those problems is what we all try to continue to develop.
On Testing
As examiners we always must keep in mind the scope of the CI tests. We have been provided guidelines through Examination Protocol, Candidate Bill of Rights, and even written expectations on the tests themselves. Even if any of us don't agree with the purpose of a task or the expectations we can't continue down a path of inconsistent examination of candidates. We must stick together and do what is right for both the candidate and the quality of the FFF CICP.
I would believe that Gordy would agree that adhering to the expectations written below each task, and also this excerpt from the Master Candidates Bill of Rights; "d.) Failure on the part of the candidate to perform a demonstration which exceeds the test standards as written and approved by the Casting Board of Governors cannot be held against the candidates.", would trump his feelings on what the candidate should know. These things were written and agreed upon by the Casting Board of Governors and until the expectations are revised I feel it is our responsibility to adhere to them.
My Beliefs
I also would like to see a candidate blow me away with their depth of knowledge on every task and question. It makes the examiner job so much easier when something like that happens because we probably wouldn't be asking the question "did I do right by the candidate and the FFF CICP after the tests conclusion". Realistically, that scenario rarely ever happens and we have to walk that fine line of judgement. Like you said the other day, it's as much work for the examiners as it is for the candidate. When we get on a testing committee with a comfortable and knowledgeable candidate, it makes it fun and rewarding to be a part of that test. But when we are part of a test with a sub-par candidate, a marginal candidate or even one that is just above average, then we must work that much harder to not discourage the candidate while upholding the standards of the program (btw, Gordy is a master at doing this). It's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it.
Eric
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Eric,
At present our CCI Testing Committee is in deep discussion over the wording of our preamble notes which deal with the scope of the CCI exam as distinct from that of the MCI exam.
Of course, there is a big difference between the two as we are all aware. While all agree that casting competency and teaching must be fairly evaluated as we administer these tests, most of us do feel that in the interest of fairness, we must not hold the CCI candidate to the rigorous standards of the MCI exam.
To this end, along with specific changes in the Task wordings, we will present our Committee recommendations to the BOG for discussion and vote at the next meeting.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] A testing question from Peter Lami :
Gordy,
Recently, a MCI candidate demonstrated two change-of-direction casts in a PRACTICE TEST: 1.) Series of false casts; and 2.) Water haul. Did the candidate satisfy all the requirements of Task #16?
You said, "A competent Master candidate really should be able to come up with at least 8 different methods of making change of direction casts." This is well beyond the scope of the MCI test which very clearly states -- "The demonstration should include a minimum of two different casts..."
Opinion was divided in this real world case. Two MCI's voted that the candidate PASSED. One MCI voted the candidate FAILED.
Eric Cook and others, including myself, think this discussion may be better suited for Dusty Sprague and his committee to address, but I wanted to push it to your desk for analysis and comments. BTW, Eric Cook reluctantly agreed to allow me to share the message below with you. He explains his reasoning hereunder.
Peter Lami
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Peter quotes Ed Chamberlain :
"Peter, you and Gordy are absolutely right on the $$ about a Master candidate's ability to know and demonstrate multiple changes of direction....but as Eric so succinctly expressed, the Bill of Rights prevents "mission creep" and the test Task only requires two change casts, and even gives one of them away, ergo that is the requirement / "Task". The old "Task (in this case "Demonstrate two change of direction casts), Condition, Standard" that was the benchmark of Army performance and training for years........
Now we get into the aspect of "minimum" standards, but that is another discussion............."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Peter,
Here's my take:
Since this was a practice exam, I'd have informed the candidate that he had barely met the expectations of Task 16.
I'd then coach him on several other techniques and hopefully have him prepared to explain and demonstrate them for his actual test.
If this had occurred on a formal exam, I'd feel bound to pass the candidate on that task provided he could meet the other expectations including an explanation of why these casts were chosen as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each cast.
HOWEVER......
I'd remain unimpressed if on followup questioning, he couldn't come up with several other ways of making the change of direction casts.
His performances at that point would accrue to my overall impressions at the end of the test as I asked myself the question of overriding importance : WOULD I WANT MY NAME ON THAT CERTIFICATE APPROVING THIS CANDIDATE AS A TRUE MASTER INSTRUCTOR ?
Frankly, I'd like to see the MCI Testing Committee require more than two methods of change of direction to include both 45 degree and 180 degree COD casts.
All of the successful candidates I've tested in the past have had no problem doing that, so I would not consider this change to be "exam performance creep"
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|