Page 4 of 4

Re: Differentiating Creep versus Bad Timing

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2020 4:30 pm
by Paul Arden
Lasse Karlsson wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:51 pm

They did wait several months, years actually, still didn't adopt what was working :D

Cheers
Lasse
Actually that’s true. I’d forgotten about that 😷

Re: Differentiating Creep versus Bad Timing

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:16 am
by Carol
The FFI definitions of creep and drift are confusing when it comes to repositioning the rod in task 2: cast a wide front loop and a narrow back loop. So I pointed out to JW wherein the confusion lies for me:

"Drift is rod rotation and/or hand translation during the pause in the direction of the current cast." My addition to the definition: It is intentional and used to reposition the rod, serves a useful purpose and is not a fault.

"Creep is rod rotation made during the pause in the direction of the next cast." My addition to the definition: It is a fault because it typically is unintentional and leads to a smaller arc.

This is why I’m confused. When we reposition the rod in the direction of the next cast in task 2 it reduces the available casting arc but is useful and intentional. The only thing that makes it not drift according to the definition is the direction. Creep would be in the right direction but it is unintentional."


In response, JW, forever pragmatic, gave me a good way to look at drift v. creep that finally makes sense to me in task #2 (and everywhere else). This is a direct quote:

"Right, so think of all these things as motions without applying a value judgement to them. They are not good or bad, intentional or unintentional. Both creep and drift can cause problems—or can be useful.
Creep-Rod rotation during the pause in the direction of the next cast.
The resulting decrease in arc size could cause a tail, or might simply decrease loop size because the arc size was too big to begin with, or could be used to change trajectory.
Drift-Rod rotation and/or translation during the pause in the direction of the unrolling loop.
This could be used to increase casting arc/stroke length, widen the next loop, change trajectory, but too much drift will create slack. I have seen students “drift” unintentionally and struggle with loop control."


With the "good v. evil" :D :666: taken out, I now understand that the typical motions in casting can be useful or problematic depending upon when and how implemented. Whew ... for now. :yeahhh:

Re: Differentiating Creep versus Bad Timing

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 3:31 pm
by Paul Arden
Yes but I’m pretty sure that later in the exam when it comes to tailing loops you will see Creep described as a fault. Creep is not the only fault term we have in fly casting. Crashed Anchors would be another.

If Creep isn’t a fault for the IFF then they have to be completely consistent with this throughout the test. However the problem is that most instructors including me consider Creep to be a fly casting fault. So I think their definition is simply wrong! And unfortunately they are sowing the seeds of confusion.

Cheers, Paul

Re: Differentiating Creep versus Bad Timing

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:13 pm
by easterncaster
Paul in Drag: Pipe and dapper hat.


:)

Re: Differentiating Creep versus Bad Timing

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:57 pm
by Lasse Karlsson
Paul Arden wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 3:31 pm
Yes but I’m pretty sure that later in the exam when it comes to tailing loops you will see Creep described as a fault. Creep is not the only fault term we have in fly casting. Crashed Anchors would be another.

If Creep isn’t a fault for the IFF then they have to be completely consistent with this throughout the test. However the problem is that most instructors including me consider Creep to be a fly casting fault. So I think their definition is simply wrong! And unfortunately they are sowing the seeds of confusion.

Cheers, Paul

Agree.

Cheers
Lasse

Re: Differentiating Creep versus Bad Timing

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 9:32 pm
by Carol
I think what JW was trying to say is to think of supplemental motions as just motions, without qualifying them or demonizing them. Yes, in task 22 the candidate is supposed to identify faults performed by the examiner, among which are poor tracking, poor stop, and creep. But "poor tracking" isn't poor when it's intended in a curve cast, and a "poor stop" isn't poor if you intend to have a mushy stop and an open loop. Likewise, creep isn't necessarily bad either. Look at Paul's video on tailing loops: A tailing loop is a fault, but not when you have a good use for it. However, in the context of the FFI CCI exam, a tailing loop is a fault, and I will recognize it as such -- though I know it isn't ALWAYS ;) -- and in the context of task 22, creep will be demonstrated as a fault, and I will recognize it as such.