|
[GH] Once in a while, I don't mind back tracking a bit to a prior topic when a significant message comes in on it.
Mark Milkovitch sends this message :
From: Mark Milkovich <mark@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Task #4,Intent vs. Function
Date: February 28, 2011 12:39:52 AM EST
To: Gordy Hill <MasterStudyGroup@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Gordy,
Thank you for taking the time to go through the tasks. It is extremely helpful and you have done a wonderful job of both teaching us and reminding us to pay attention to what the exam actually says. Consistently including Ally’s and Gary’s perspectives on each task has added a great deal of depth to the discussion.
You are probably happily past task #4. My mentor, Kirk Eberhard, and I have enjoyed continuing some of these discussions, including Task #4, after the group has moved on. It occurs to me that the intent of Task #4, measuring aerial mending ability, may not be the true function of Task #4, separating those that can make a near perfect 55’ cast from those that cannot. In this case the function may be more important than the intent.
As Ally reported, Bruce Richards commented that a Master would certainly be able to make a single handed 55’ cast; that’s max for many good casters. There is no other task which challenges one handed casting length capabilities and that, for purposes of casting mastery, may be more important than aerial mending ability. Task #4 adds elements that require not just a longer cast but a well controlled 55’cast. Unless near vertical rod position and ideal tracking are occurring, excess line speed is likely to cause the leader and fly to cross the path of the measuring tape. In this context the mend is a diversion which helps assure that the line speed was appropriate to the distance and tracking is indeed good. Making this cast well might not make a candidate a Master, but the inability to make it is probably a good reason to believe a candidate is not masterful.
Thanks,
Mark Milkovich
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Mark,
I think the primary intent of task 4 is to asses the candidate's ability to control the layout in terms of mend formation at designated distances. Distance is secondary. Putting it another way, I see mend control as primary, not a diversion.
One reason for "casting approximately 55 feet of line" is that you need almost that length of line out of the rod tip to make decent size mends out to 35' and still have some line straight beyond the last mend. It's either that or shoot line. On this task, control is made more difficult when the candidate elects to shoot line, so its best that approximately 55' of line be carried.
If the intent was to judge the candidate's ability to make a single handed cast to 55' the task would have been worded differently.
Joe Libeu, of the MCI Testing Committee, said this in the Task 4 Discussion 2 message on Feb. 17. (I highlighted part of this message ) :-
"I agree, this is perhaps the most difficult task. Regarding the size of mends at the 35ft, I do not expect a 3-4 mend at this point a 2-3 ft mend is fine. Those of you that have worked on have found it difficult to make a 4 ft mend. In testing, I would most likely ask for a mend to one side of the 1st target and on target 2 to the other side and on the last target I will let the individual do what they would like.
As far as shooting line and picking up line. Yes, you can strip in and then work line out, however, if you don't have the 55 ft of line out, and this can be difficult to measure in the air, you make the task harder with a shorter amount of line. The individual needs to carry 55 ft of line in the air, if this is the case, why would you shoot more line on the lay down? When you shoot line you risk reducing the mend size or taking the mend out of the line. In essence, you could loose some line control. I prefer to see the individual pick up 55 ft and do the task.
Joe Libeu "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Dusty Sprague, of the MCI Testing Committee sent this message for Task 4 Discussion 1 :-
"Gordy,
In the proposed revision we shortened casting distance to 50 feet; specified the loop sizes to be 3 to 4 feet in height; still no hauling, which to our committee means line hand may hold line; and specified mend lengths and depths.
Dusty "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|