I think we see that similarly then. In the past I would have said technique. But after the Tennis article if that’s the way to analyse then it’s form.
I also wrote,
Form could be the overall silhouette and technique variations within. I do change form if this is the definition. Indeed I would argue that is the core change that makes someone go from being an average caster to a highly proficient caster. Or to look at it another way, we give someone an effective throwing action or better pattern/coordination to… assist their technique?
I’m not sure but I’m sure we can find suitable agreement and dare I say it get some agreed definitions and then use specific examples to get everyone on the same page. That might save years of circular discussions and misunderstandings
Separating technique from form is commonly done in other sports. So I assume there is value in this. For me I would go with technique being small focused actions/interactions and form being the big fuzzy picture.
Good form: bent knees, feet apart for stability, action from the ground up (or body centric), shoulder/elbow/wrist started in sequence and finished in sequence, blocking the forearm/body to flip the wrist. That to me is the essence of good casting and it’s all form.
Position and Pattern!
Mark wrote, Form is fuzzy, technique is focussed on adaptation within it. Fine by me.
Maybe that’s the start of a consensus.
Cheers, Paul