Is there any easy way of explaining NO FOOT RISE.We all know it usually occurs on a turn by the person on the inside. But not only on a turn. Quickstep has it also Quarter Turns and Progressive Chasse. But staying with the Waltz. Unless I am built in an unusual manner, whenever I step to the side will at some time or other go from a toe to a toe. That might seem like a conradiction, but it is a fact. So with the book where are we. The book stays with the back LF lady, after that step is finished, it is in the past. The fact that we must come to a toe eventually will not get a mention. Why have NFR. It stops the person on the inside from arriving on step two before their partner ( which happens regularly ). Their weight should still be on the LF. arriving not before , not with , but following up. This also creates an illusion of there being more rise than there actually is with the lady coming in late and completing the sway. Open to contradictions they are wellcome.

Yes, the book footwork only explicitly lists for each figure what happens before the other foot passes. However in the more detailed technique books it explains how you can figure out what happens some time after the other foot passes based on what comes next:

TH, NFR followed by a back or diagonally back step releases the toe, and the weight leaves the foot via the heel. Example, lady 1 of feather.

TH, NFR followed by a side step releases the heel, and the weight leaves the foot from the toe. Example, lady 1 of natural turn.

Also note going forwards the difference (example, man the three step) between H and HT. In the first there is no rise and the weight reaches the toe only after the other foot has passed.

One thing you should realize is that the specification NFR applies to the current arriving foot, however, the releasing of the toe doen't happen until you leave that same foot, which is one whole step later. Therefore, to determine whether or not to release your toe, you need to refer to the previous step.

For example, a common beginner mistake is to assume that the toe releases on step 4 of a Chasse from PP in Waltz (lady), because the arriving footwork is TH. But you need to look back to step 3, which was a toe, to realize that the left heel never lowers. So when the body moves away from the left foot on step 4, the right toe remains connected, and the left heel never touches down. In other words, no toe release on 4.

What the lowering on 4 of the Chasse does tell you is that the following step (step 5 of the Chasse, or 1 of the next figure, depending on how you see it) will have a toe release. This is true regardless of the footwork or rise & fall of the next step.

When you release your toe on the back step of a basic natural or reverse turn, it is not due to the NFR specification on that step. The reason you release your toe on that step is because you lowered on the previous step (toe-heel).

Let's say, for example, you have a back step that has foot rise, but the previous step was toe-heel. Would you release your toe? Yes. If you were to continue to draw the foot back, it might ultimately change to a toe to match the supporting foot, but initially upon leaving the foot, you would indeed release the toe.

I hope these descriptions make sense. When you understand the necessity to look back one step to determine the footwork of the foot you're leaving, you will always make the correct choice.

Regards,
Jonathan

Many people will, for purposes of discussing foot action associate the entire action of a given foot with the step number on which that foot moved, including the departure action which takes place after the official end of step. Because it takes place after the official end, Jonathan prefers to associate it with the next step.

Either way, we have to be very clear what we are talking about or confusion will be widespread; when the actions don't seem in our reading to match the foot we thought we were talking about, it may be hard to figure out which role is being described.

Don,

You ask:

"Is there any easy way of explaining NO FOOT RISE....".

Simple as the concept is, I don't think that it is possible to effectively convey the idea in the context of the written technique because of the way the general concept of RISE is discussed or defined in the written technique. While the concept of RISE is fairly consistent within the book, it is somewhat artifically dealt with and inconsistent with our common sense notions. Their NFT concept on top of that just creates more unnecessary complexity.

My feeling is that there should'nt even be a need to coin the concept of NFT. What we would need to do 1st is broaden the concept and yet at the same time make it more consistent with our perceptions and experiences, but we'll leave that for another day.

Rha