Question for the FFI MCI mentors and examiners

[Lasse Karlsson]

How do you measure 7'11" ? You just told me no one measures...

I can’t measure it…don’t know anyone who can. If I could I’d have to be some sort of nit picking sociopath to fail someone who was casting an inch under 8’.

I wouldn't fail anyone casting 2,5 cm under the requirement, wouldn't be able to tell anyway. 2 feet, thats a different thing, and thats what I meant with 6'1" ....

if they give me 6'1" which is damn easy to see, I would have to fail them.

If the request is for a 6’ loop then 6’ 1” is a pass. The issue is whether the assessor and the candidate can tell the difference between 6’1” and 5’9”. If this is a distinction which is easy for you too see I’m assuming you have special powers.

See above....

Now you tell me no one measures, and its unacceptable to ask that someone does. Seems very unprofessionel, but thats clearly just me.

I don’t believe I said it’s unacceptable, I think I said it’s impossible in real time. You can do as much jiggery pokery with video post performance afterwards as you like but that’s not available to assessors or candidates in the actual assessment.

With respect to those people standing in casting assessments being “professional” I believe the process is overwhelmingly carried out by volunteer amateurs.

If they can't tell the difference between 8 feet and 6 feet in real time, I really don't care if they are professionel or not, they volunteer to assess someone paying 450 dollars and should take it seriously, but I get the feeling I am very alone in that take on things..

Otherwise why specify a certain point in a cast to measure?

I’ll give you that. It is an arbitrary point in the process. You’d have to have eyesight sufficient to spot electrons in motion to get that nailed accurately.

Na, if I can do it, you should be able to too... not that I like that specific brainfart, but it's in there and majority must like it, since they jept it through recent adjustments of the test.

You’ll have to ask Mike what he sees, I usually see really big almost non loops then smaller better controlled medium size loops then even smaller ones. For most SL casters a 3’ loop isn’t particularly narrow.

Yeah, about that, I asked what the two of you observed when you went out after the rain and tried the task back when you got called to talk me down by the commitee, not what you see in a test or mentoring. I'd like an answer to that, but I suspect you never went out and tried, am I right? It was in October, so you might have forgotten. What I see is I get two big enough loops, almost none loops, and then theres so much slack that I tick tick tick, or I have to speed up, and then the loops morph to 6 feet or less. I had really hoped that you had gone out and tried, I really did.

Having said all of that due to Covid lockdowns etc I stood in only one MCI test since 2020. I will not stand in another one.

Thought it was 2...

Its ok, I won't stand in any test or mentor anyone, so I'm one up on you

Cheers
Lasse

[Stoatstail50]

I really don't care if they are professionel or not, they volunteer to assess someone paying 450 dollars and should take it seriously, but I get the feeling I am very alone in that take on things..

If a candidate believes that assessors have not taken their responsibilities seriously then there are opportunities for recourse, refund or resit.

I can assure you that the consequences for an assessor, in the event of such a request, are prolonged, intrusive, aggressive and highly personally offensive.

[Lasse Karlsson]

Hi Mark

I love how my questions are never answered, and since you state that you will not test a MCI again, this thread really isn't for you, I asked to see a clip, you say no one measures anyway, and that wanting the requirements of the test upheld is not happening in real life. This is what the testing protocol says for FFI exams:

So, I think my request is somewhat justified, a bit baffled that you think otherwise.

And yeah, I know about those things, better than most, and that isn't what is asked about here!

Cheers
Lasse

[Stoatstail50]

a bit baffled that you think otherwise.

I don’t think otherwise, I do think however, that assessors are given some space to exercise their own judgement on approximate loop sizes because no one is able to accurately measure these things in real time.

I don’t think that’s either unreasonable or particularly difficult to understand. This is not at all the same as applying “personal preference or expectations” to elements of the test.

As I understand it, following your comments last year, there will be some revision of the wording to make it clear that exactitude is not necessary and approximate will be good enough.

With respect to our conversations on this in October and your familiarity with the internal workings of the FFI, the idea that I was acting as some sort of missionary diplomat on behalf of a “committee” is past laughable under the circumstances…and a bit rude frankly.

[Lasse Karlsson]

Hi Mark

Again, no answers to my questions.

Yeah, commitee chair told me that, about the wording, right before you suddenly contacted me on the matter, that I had only spoken to the commitee chair about. Sorry if it seems a bit rude. You did keep radio silence for 6 months prior, so it seemed quite odd.

The written word states one thing, the examiners apperantly do something different. I would love for the two to be equal, it would make for a better test, but I am clearly alone in this. This is not about examiners having some wriggle room. It's about a task being impossible as written. Amazing that that is so hard to understand!

And yeah, I remember when someone took a yardstick to a meeting in the US, and they found out that the majority of MCI present couldn't meet the 2 foot loop requirement in the MCI test at the time, it took less than a month before the test was revised to be 3 feet loops. So familiar with the inner workings of the FFI CICP, yeah, I am to some extent....

Cheers
Lasse

[Stoatstail50]

It's about a task being impossible as written. Amazing that that is so hard to understand!

I don’t think that’s hard to understand. What is hard to understand is that, if you’ve had some sort of acknowledgment that there will be some changes to the task as a consequence of your previous comments, and that these changes make it clear that measurements are only approximate, you’re still complaining as if you haven’t heard a peep. Change may be glacially slow but that’s another matter.

As far as my own interpretation goes I was generally more interested in how a caster controls the transitions from one loop size to another than accurately measuring the loop size. As you have pointed out, this is now irrelevant as I won’t assess again so I’ll bail out of this conversation now.

[Torsten]

Hi Lasse,

just curious, is this task impossible because you can't measure the size or because you can't create the stated loop size?
How do they measure the size? Video analysis?

Feet to fluff means much less then 50ft fly line?

Greetings,
Torsten

Do anyone have a passing clip of task 2 in the MCI test. The task has been there since the revision in 2019, and call for 4 backcasts and 3 forwardcasts with a loop size 8 feet or greater, measured 3-4 feet behind the leading edge of the loop, when the nailknot passes the rodtip.
3/3 casts with 6 feet or greater and lastly 3/3 cast with 3 feet or less loops.

This is to be done with 50 feet of line, measured from feet to fluff, and ticking is not allowed.

I can't do it, and knowing I am not a good caster, I was just hoping to see someone else showing how its done

[Paul Arden]

Lasse says it can’t be done without ticking. I’ve had a play on the boat, so not measured properly and I can see a challenge! I can understand Lasse’s argument here. If the task is impossible then it should be rewritten. There is nothing worse for an examiner than a candidate passing them the rod and saying “show me”. And when they can’t then there is a real problem.

Cheers, Paul

[Torsten]

Hi Paul,

I'd have to try, so the task as stated would be impossible. I'm guessing ticking happens for the large loop size (?)
But have they not done a test run before writing the rules down ?

Greetings,
Torsten

[Lasse Karlsson]

Hi Lasse,

just curious, is this task impossible because you can't measure the size or because you can't create the stated loop size?
How do they measure the size? Video analysis?

Feet to fluff means much less then 50ft fly line?

Greetings,
Torsten

Hi Torsten

Its impossible for me, because I can get two loops big enough, then the amount of slack has build up, and I start ticking and just moving line around in the air. If I aim to keep them from ticking, I have to speed up, and the loops morph tighter to around 6 feet when they should be measured.

As Mark says, no one apperantly measures in the field. I used to, not super precise, because thats to much to ask, but ball park is very possible, some has a smaller ballpark than others. Old test asked for app 8 feet pickup loop, which is possible, and then narrower loops over 5-6 falsecasts. Great way of checking if a candidate can vary loopsizes. New task is 8 feet or bigger for 7 loops, then app 6 feet for 6 loops and then 3feet or narrower for 6 loops.

Good luck, and you should aim for a day without wind!

And yeah, 50 feet from feet to fluff, is just over 30 feet of flyline.

Cheers
Lasse