Delderby Loc: Derby UK

It's a combination of being out of focus and a fish nibbling!

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Rod and line out of focus. When you have a narrow out of focus foreground it tends to appear larger than what it is. If it were in focus, the fishing line would be narrower.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Insufficient depth of field. At F11, the hyperfocal distnance is 62.1 ft, If you focus at 15 ft your total depth of field is 7.58 ft. I doubt the rod and line moved much at 1/200 sec. Either do two exposures, one where the rod and line are in focus, and the other with the focus as you have it, and merge in a focus stacking program, or shoot at F22 and lose that wonderful detail in the background.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Not sure what the problem is. You focused on the background, so naturally the light refracting through the nylon cord (which is well out of the DOF) is going to appear even more distorted than it would if you were focused on that point. Unless the issue is that the rod and the line were the intended subjects. In that case you should have focused manually on the subject since AF is unlikely to choose such a small target as the likely focus point..

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I am not familiar with Nikon mirrorless cameras. In this particular case the fluorocarbon line will show like it did because it is white in color.
A shutter speed of 1/200sec. is not enough to stop motion in a 80-400 lens although the lens you have has VR. I do not know of the capabilities of the camera or lens but VR will never stop motion of the subject although it is excellent to stop in camera motion.

This fishing rod is blurred due to movement beyond the control of the shutter speed.

Orson Burleigh Loc: Annapolis, Maryland, USA

I'd guess that slight softness of the line and the pole which were in front of the area in focus, the slightly jumbled refraction of light by the line, and, as was optimistically suggested, a bit of fishy nibbling all combined to produce the effect. I like it
It is a happy bit of angular, straight-edged whimsicality

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

This is a unique and interesting capture.
May I offer a gentle critique?

I shoot Canon but we can still be friends!
You seem to have focused on the water and the rock on the left in the foreground. This makes for a nice landscape. However, everything falls out of focus. Namely the fishing rod. You may want to capture the rod specifically with the line threaded through the little "hoops". That would also bring the fishing line in focus too. Namely, it would not look as if it were moving and blurred. The trees in the background could be better focused or if out of focus create a unique Bokeh effect.
How does one accomplish all of this? Try manual focusing on the lowest part of the fishing rod by the reel. Focusing on the upper part of the rod will be difficult because wind will cause vibrations. Dial up your ISO, set your shutter for faster perhaps 1/1000s and your f/stop of 11. This will give you some good light reception and even some decent depth of field. Play around with these settings taking several shots slightly changing each. This is called, bracketing. Also, don't stand head on to the fishing rod and line. Move around. Even kneeling works fine. This creates a different perspective and the fishing line will diminish slightly so as not to be blurred. Try at different times during the sunlight or even on cloudy or rainy days. Get a rain sleeve and cover your "baby" from the rain.

I like this photo very much. It speaks to me. Make it yell at me so as to drag my attention along for the ride and along the water's edge.

If my critique seemed harsh, it was not intended as such. I see great potential in this untapped landscape.

magpix Loc: St. Michaels, MD

That lens (and any telephoto) has a shallow depth of field even when stopped down to f/11. So you may have focused on the overall background scene which will naturally put the fishing rod and line out of focus. Depending on the distance of the line to your camera, it may have been impossible to focus on the line. Typically the best way to shoot both near and far subjects in focus is to use a wider lens and move very close to the near subject.

Low Budget Dave

I have to agree this is what it looks like to me. The trees in the background are in focus, and your depth of field is big, but not nearly big enough to have the trees and the fishing line both in focus.

Markag

Thank you. I'll set up a test shooting in my yard. I agree the line will disappear with an adjusted f stop. Lots of trout that day. A real hoot.

StanMac Loc: Tennessee

I think it’s an effect of the fishing line retransmitting the sunlight that strikes it. Note that the rod and line don’t show that effect where it is behind the tree/shrub at the lower left where they are in partial or full shadow.

Stan

JDefebaugh

Without question it’s the rod and line not being in focus coupled with the lighting and translucent nature of the line.

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

I aggree with others, it's out of focus for one.

For two, the line is made to defuse light so it will be nearly impossible to see when underwater.

For the third reason, it is reflecting onto parts of the rod. That and the other reasons equals what you now see.

fergmark Loc: norwalk connecticut

This is your answer. That lens will never come close to the dof you might have wished for.

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

Nice scene....BAD photograph.