ol Al....
Walter Simberski and I had a brief discussion on the inaccuracies inherent in looking at these things as in 2 dimensional, "planes". (I didn't CC you with those messages.)
I think that Steve is correct in saying that we are not describing these things in strict geometric terms. Any, "plane" can be considered as an imaginary flat surface.....yet almost all our rod, hand, and line movements have some departure from a true plane by any definition.....including 3 dimensional ones.
The easiest to consider is the rod plane. (Orientation of the fly rod from vertical to horizontal on either side of the caster.) This one does NOT conform to Jason Borger's "casting circle". That "casting circle" chapter should be read very carefully (The Nature of Fly Casting pp 38 -39.) Look at the diagram (Fig. 2-26) and you will see that by, "to the right" or "full right" means to cast in that direction. "center position" means to cast straight ahead. "full left" means to cast to the left of the caster. He goes on to point out that ,"This is a rudimentary form of a, "Change of Direction Cast"."
It has nothing to do with a change from vertical to horizontal, whatsoever, whereas the Rod Plane is just that.
To be even more clear, if I cast with my rod parallel to the ground, I'm casting in a horizontal rod plane. If I cast with my rod straight up (perpendicular to the ground), I'm casting in a vertical rod plane. Here, we look at the, "plane" as an imaginary flat surface oriented with respect to the ground.
This confusion exists with many who have read his text and, while I agree fully with Jason, I don't use the term in teaching because of this difficulty with students' understanding.
As I look at LINE PLANE, I see it simplistically with the caster using a vertical rod plane, the line being projected back or forward at an angle with relation to the ground. In other words, TRAJECTORY. (Example: Back cast high aimed at a cloud / forward cast low to a target on the ground.)
Now all that goes "out the window" when the caster changes from a vertical to an off vertical or horizontal rod plane, because we can no longer relate to an angle between the ground and the line.......so to be more exact, we must relate the travel direction of the line to something else. That, "something else" is very difficult for students to comprehend, since it really is an imaginary flat surface such as the ground which tilts off vertical on either side as the rod plane does.......call it what you will.
Another way to look at LINE PLANE and TRAJECTORY doesn't involve a true "plane" for the line at all, but rather the angular direction of travel of the line/loop with respect to the ground for the vertical rod plane or that same angle of line/loop travel with respect to each rod plane chosen.
Now that can get VERY complicated as we change rod planes from that of the back cast to that of the forward cast as in elliptical casting, in which case we can relate the angular travel direction of the loop with respect to each rod plane....the one for the back cast, and the one for the forward cast seperately.
One reason I used CASTING PLANE as a synonym for, TRAJECTORY and, LINE PLANE is for the sake of easy teaching. I realize that some authors use the term, CASTING PLANE to mean the plane taken by the hand during the stroke.........but, as I see it, no such, "plane" exists, since the casting hand moves, for most casts, in an irregular ellipse. What IS important to the cast, I feel, is the vector resultant of the path taken by the hand in the direction of the cast......to put it simply, the distance the hand travels in the direction of the cast, ie. the linear distance. I see that as, STROKE LENGTH which is consistent with the definition of the casting stroke as the linear path taken by the hand during the cast. (The word linear is optional)
Should you wish to tease your brain even further, read Chapter 3 (pp 58 - 85) of Mac Brown's book, CASTING ANGLES. (Best for me to do at 5:00 AM after 2 cups of coffee.) His basic descriptions of, LINE PLANE, and ROD PLANE are clear. He points out what I did about the difficulty in defining the motion of the hand. He goes in to rotatory-type motions implemented during the stroke becoming translatory, and points out that, "The line plane may vary or be non-planar....." On p. 60, he goes into descriptions and a diagram of, "the body planes". (see fig. 3.5........anatomists would call these depicted planes as either the CORONAL PLANE or the SAGITTAL PLANE.)
On p. 62 he states, "The casting planes are difficult to perceive because they are two-dimentional being used to describe three -dimensions all around the caster's body.....a non-planar approach, for understqnding the various motions of spatial displcement, is needed to fully understand the reality of fly-casting......." (Fig. 3.8) He then goes in to his 3 dimentional approach and vector quantities.
I think he's right.......but the casting world isn't ready to embrace all these concepts. To do so, is to become too iconoclastic.
Gordy
From: "Allen Crise" <flysoup@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "" <flysoup@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: hillshead@xxxxxxx
Subject: FW: Terms, uh-oh I got to thinking again
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 09:38:55 -0600
Howdy Gordy
Steve is the student that made the CD on instructing the instructor
Now I have read over what he said. I tend to agree with him.
I am at work so I did not study it real close.
What do you Think?
ol Al
Allen Crise FFF Master Casting Instructor
Hawk Ridge Tackle & Flycasting School
2508 A County Road 1011
Glen Rose, Tx. 76043
254-897-2045
>------- Original Message -------
>From : steve hollensed[mailto:stevehollensed@xxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent : 2/3/2006 9:25:17 AM
>To : flysoup@xxxxxxxxxx
>Cc :
>Subject : FW: Terms, uh-oh I got to thinking again
>
>Hi Al,
Our recent discussion of terms has been very useful and practical,
especially from an instructors perspective.
While preparing for the CCI exam (and even now) I believe I ran across
many different and contradictory uses of the phrases ""casting plane"",
""rod plane"", and ""line plane"". Furthermore, in the Jan. 31 email you
sent out, which included Gordy's response to Dennis's answer defining
rod plane, Gordy seems to agree with Dennis's statement that ""In fly
casting we are not talking about a plane in the geometric sense (i.e. a
2 dimensional surface)""
See if you and Gordy agree or disagree with my analysis below. I would
like to just include most types of conventional casts and exclude
specialty casts, like curve casts, for our discussion purposes here.
(for these terms will be used mostly when teaching the basic,
conventional casts)
First, when the terms rod plane or casting plane are defined as some
position from a vertical position to a horizontal position either right
or left of the caster, then I believe that the instructor is referring
to the ""casting circle"", which is aptly described in Jason Borger's
""Nature of Fly Casting"", p.38-39. This casting circle is perpendicular
to the cast and could be imagined as ""a protractor going through the
sides of the caster"".
Borger, on p. 37, discusses ""three distinct planes in fly casting. These
are parallel to the cast and perpendicular to the casting circle. They
are the 1)casting plane 2) the rod plane and 3) the line plane.
Although, his use of the word ""plane"" may not be perfectly consistent
with the geometric definition, I believe his general intent is. That is,
he is envisioning the 2-dimensional surface that the hand is traveling
in, as the casting plane (I would say hand and arm, for to me, it seems
easier to visualize). He is envisioning the 2-dimensional space that
the rod travels through as the rod plane. And lastly, he is envisioning
the 2-dimensional space that the line travels as the line plane. All are
parallel to the cast and perpendicular to the casting circle.
To me, the line plane in the geometric sense, is especially useful as it
can describe leg over leg loops which are oriented vertically or at some
angle. Or the line can escape this 2-D surface, and we say that the loop
""kicks out"" at the end of the cast. Additionally (at least to me) it is
beneficial to distinguish between the line plane and trajectory, with
the former being 2-dimensional and the latter being linear.
Another example of the benefit of using ""plane"" in the geometric sense
is the description of an across-the-head, off-shoulder cast with
vertically parallel loops. In this case the arm defines the casting
plane (vertical and to the right of a right handed caster), the rod and
hand defines the rod plane (tilted and angled to the left), and the line
defines the line plane, vertically oriented but offset to the left of
the right handed caster). In this case all three planes are parallel to
the cast and perpendicular to the casting circle. Two planes are
parallel to each other but occupy different positions in space,
therefore require 2 separate geometric planes to describe or visualize.
(The only deviation I think I have here from Borgers system, is that I
have included the hand to be in the rod plane because of wrist
rotation.)
My point then is that the term ""casting circle"" is often interchanged
with the terms ""casting plane"" or ""rod plane"" which leads to ambiguity.
Further the word ""plane"" was meant to mean ""plane"" as in the geometric
sense. If not, then perhaps would should find some other word.
Hope this is not confusing. Again, the purpose here is to clearly get on
the same page with the terms we use. It just seems to me that the word
""plane"" is being used in lots of different ways. Agree? Disagree?
Steve