In a nutshell:
[ul][li]Man enters a contest that has a $1 million prize to the angler who catches a world-record fish using a certain brand hook[/li][li]Man catches record-breaking fish using the proper hook[/li][li]Man sent photos of the fish hanging from an approved scale, the lure that he made, his rod and reel, and the 68-pound fish[/li][li]Group denies claim, saying the man used an ‘illegal spreader bar’[/li][li]Man counters that he used a 'homemade spinnerbait lure[/ul][/li]
Did the man win legitimately, and is the group trying to renege? (‘Wait. What? No one was actually supposed to win!’) Or did the man’s ‘spinnerbait lure’ violate the rules?
Seeing the rules and lure would help. There has been plenty of cheating in these fishing contests in the past, so it’s reasonable for the sponsor be cautious and sticklers for the rules.
All fishing type ‘contests’ are governed by what defines a ‘legal catch’ in the area the fish was caught in - IOW - even to get into the ‘world record’ - it must be legally caught.
Those legalities can include things like - valid fishing license, type of bait, number of poles, eye-witnesses, etc - it varies quite widely -
As an example, here lately - there have been (In the fresh fishing world) new baits that have come out that are basically ‘spreader rigs’ (often used for trolling for Stripers, etc) that are catable - meaning a single head + a number of hooks on the end of wire - there has been many disputes over wether or not those are ‘legal’. Some places they are - other places they are not.
So - all tht means is that the fisherman is
a) responsible for knowing all the nuances for the area he is fishing in
b) a ‘legal’ catch would be required to win the contest
c) there is likely some dispute over wether or not the specific rig he was using qualified for (B) based on some nuance in (a)
If the world fishing folks that certify records will not recognize the catch - then he has no fin to swim with in court against the hook company - IMHO.
I don’t know, but it would be a not very difficult task to obtain expert testimony (say, product development directors at other companies (not involved in the suit) that manufacture fishing hooks; fish and wildlife commissioners; directors of organizations that sponsor fishing contests (like, say, this guy); permanent product reviewers for fishing enthusiast magazines, etc., etc.) to enable the fact-finder come to understand the distinction and then resolve the issue.
Is there any sense in which a “spinner lure” could be called a “spreader bar”? It sounds to me like they are two different things, but I don’t fish. We only seem to have the lawsuit’s statement that that is why he was disqualified, or that that was the only reason given, though.
If the “spreader bar” disqualification is found invalid, could the company come back with some other new reason for disqualification? Would the judge be expected to rule on that as well, or would that have to be a separate suit? It would certainly look bad.
Here are some spreader bars. When the article says “which typically has a blade-shaped object to spin like a propeller” I don’t know if those are the words of the author or the fisherman. I could see a possible spinner of some sort which is effectively doing the same thing by having the bar spin. Again, a picture of the lure would make it much easier to judge.
I tried to answer this above - look up ‘alabama rig’ for one concept of a ‘castable’ spreader bar - what tripolar just linked you to is the more traditional spreader bar used for trolling.
I’ve seen some custom alabama rigs made on spinnerbait frames - I’ve seen (its been a while) spinner baits made with 2 hook wires. I’ve also seen alabama rigs rigged with ‘spinner blades’ on a couple of the arms to provide flash.
since there is no picture in the linked story, it is impossible to tell what kind of ‘lure’ he used, but the key part of that article is this sentence here -
They determined that the lure was illegal based on the rules and likely actually examining the lure itself - which disqualifies the catch and the prize in the contest.
ETA - for a fish that big - it is highly unlikely he was using a variation of the ‘alabama rig’ (the castable version of a spreader bar) and instead something ‘larger’ - regaurdless, the fact that the IGFA disqaulifed the catch is what disqualified him from winning the prize money - and Mustad has ‘no say’ in what the IFGA qualifies.
Yeah, as simster says, we have no idea because there’s no picture. Maybe he has a spinning spreader bar, maybe he’s got spinners on the end of spreader bar lines, maybe it’s one of those cat rigs that spin, maybe something else. It doesn’t matter to me, I’d still like to know what it was and where to get one.
I keep thinking on this - and the article is misleading.
He’s suing the IGFA for disqualifying the catch - Mustad does not have any dog in the fight, they’d LOVE to say a new world record was caught using Mustad parts.
The IGFA is rarely wrong when it comes to how it classifies a bait - it also does not care if a record is broken - but it does care to make sure the catch was legal.
This guy, like many of us, probably doesn’t quite ‘catch’ the nuance here - but dayyum - what a fish.