For what it's worth, i'm with Germandanceteacher on this one. From myunderstanding of his/her descriptions, it's what i'm trying to do. Serendipity, i'll repeat something i've said before: dancing is evolving.
In any case, when you write:
******I would draw attention to Alex Moores book. A Reverse Turn. When it says on step two, RF to the side across LOD continue to turn on ball of RF and step LF back. ******
My understanding (which i admit may not be correct) is as follows:The alignments are FOOT alignments, not body alignments. The foot is placed across LOD (i.e. pointing at right-angles to wall) but the body is backing DW. This is entirely consistent with what GermanDT is saying. Then, as Alex Moore says, continue to turn on ball of right foot.
Isn't the very same concept used for 1,2,3 of natural turn in slow waltz?

Phil. Did you look at the ladies alignment. If your lady were to do her steps, and you were to do it your way, what would be the result.
The man is passing through, as he must to get from A to B. That bit in the middle is not supposed to be a parking spot. It is a place which you have to pass through. Does that make sense or not. On this particular step the CBMP on the third step of the Feather has an important bearing on what will happen on the Reverse Turn.Do the strongest CBMP, which follows the CBM on the second step of the Feather and see the resulting Reverse Turn as you unwind.. What I am told is the set up on the second step is not maintained and it mistakenly goes into a position which it is not meant to resulting in a bad CBMP. Which in a lot of cases is none at all.
To go back to the ladies chart. You will see that at the end of her step two both feet are pointing down the LOD. Answer this one . On the same chart where exactly do you think your feet will be. I'll save you the trouble. They will be , that's both close to each other momentary a mirror of the ladies foot position. Is this what you can see from Marcus Hilton or not. Also, don't ignore this. Go to Jonathan's Reverse Turn in Learn the Dances. I deliberately left that example to last because somebody would most likely say That's just how they do it in California. To that I would say Marcus doesn't come from California does he. And neither does my teachers teachers which includes Marcus anyway.

"To go back to the ladies chart. You will see that at the end of her step two both feet are pointing down the LOD. Answer this one . On the same chart where exactly do you think your feet will be. I'll save you the trouble. They will be , that's both close to each other momentary a mirror of the ladies foot position."

Serendipity really needs to put more care into rereading his message, and the argument he was objecting to (summarized best by Social Dancer a bit up the thread):

"If you look at the footprint diagram in Alex Moore you will see that step 2 is clearly placed backing DW. The RF continues to turn as step 3 is taken."

The problem is that Serendipity hasn't caught on that he's talking about the foot alignment at the END of the step, wheras everyone else is giving the initial alignment and pointing out that the foot then turns. That turn is what creates Serendipity's observed foot position by the END of the step, but it's not the described orientation of the foot for the step, because it's not the orientation with which the step is TAKEN.

Anonymous. Does Marcus or our own Jonathan not step to a position that is backing LOD. Looking at the ladies chart . With a pencil put in where you thing the man should be. On the ladies steps do you see any continuence of turn on step two. Is three straight down the LOD. If you have a clock and you are going to forward the hand by twenty minutes. You don't stop at ten do you . You continue all the way to twenty don't you.. Is that so terribly hard to understand. Why don't you look at the demostrations that are available to watch either here, or Marcus Hilton Basic Foxtrot on youtube..
I suppose its hard to take after teaching it not correctly for goodness knows how many years.
Try to understand that the right foot is turning all the way to backing LOD. It doesn't stop half way. It would feel most peculiar if the moving foot came along side whilst you were backing diagnal to the wall. If you were going into a Wave that would be fine wouldn't it.
Step two is finished as the moving foot comes along side.
Alex Moore page 34. In the case of a walk forward or backward for instance,the time value of the step is not completed untill the moving foot is drawn up to the foot that is supporting the weight. Which is what you will see if you look at the two examples that are there for you to look at.
Once again watch the examples given and if either of them have picked an alignment that is backing diagnal to the wall at the end of step two and continuing to straighten up on step three then I will eat my hat.
Finaly. You seem to believe as you have written The right foot continues to turn as step three is taken. Is that what you believe you see. Well look again. Quickly now . Go to Learn the Dances and learn.

"Alex Moore page 34. In the case of a walk forward or backward for instance,the time value of the step is not completed until the moving foot is drawn up to the foot that is supporting the weight."

That assertion applies to the time value of the step and has been discussed many times, but you have left out the previous sentence (in my copy at least). "Step: This usually refers to one movement of the foot although from a 'time value' point of view this is incorrect".

The chart descriptions use this 'one movement of a foot' definition. Consider step 2 of a waltz reverse turn. If step 2 does not end until the left foot has closed then how can we have step 3 LF closes to RF?

"You seem to believe as you have written The right foot continues to turn as step three is taken. Is that what you believe you see."

Yes. It is also what Alex Moore describes "3. Continue turning on ball of RF and step LF back"

"The chart descriptions use this 'one movement of a foot' definition."

Maybe in the earliest examples, but the revised technique very clearly uses the explicit ending conditions, of which passing the feet is one.

"Consider step 2 of a waltz reverse turn. If step 2 does not end until the left foot has closed then how can we have step 3 LF closes to RF? "

If you read the full definition of endings, you will find that in a closing situation the dividing line between steps occurs hen the foot is halfway closed, rather than when the feet pass - because they don't.

"Maybe in the earliest examples, but the revised technique very clearly uses the explicit ending conditions, of which passing the feet is one."

"If you read the full definition of endings..."

Can you quote the books/editions that cover these points please? None of mine do.

There is very little reference to the beginning or end of steps. The Alex Moore reference has already been quoted. The only other reference that comes to mid at the moment is Guy Howard's definition of 'Positions of Feet': "This refers to the position of one foot in relation to the other at the end of the step"

"There is very little reference to the beginning or end of steps. The Alex Moore reference has already been quoted."

Actually this is straight out of Alex Moore, who covers the various end of step rules in some detail. The problem is that he does it without a bold section heading. Further down the page describing the rise and fall of the foxtrot natural turn in the introduction, he begins "One further point which should be understood by the student is whayt is meant by the 'end of a step'." Three rules follow - to briefly summarize 1&2) at passing for forward and backward. 3) side steps at half closure when closure will occur or at passing when passing will occur.

Thanks Anonymouse. My studies were originally based on Guy Howard's book which, perhaps for that reason, appears more logical and suits my engineering background. I then moved on to the ISTD manual and generally only refer to my collection of Alex Moore when questions arise in forums such as this.

Whilst I am happy with the idea that the time value of the step is not completed until the feet pass, that definition of the end of a step seems inconsistent with the charted descriptions. For example, if step 2 ends when the LF passes the RF on its way back down the LOD, why does the description of step 3 say "continue to turn on ball of RF".

Guy Howard explicitly defines the foot positions and alignments in his charts as "at the end of the step" which makes logical sense to me when describing the action, if not the timing.

Interestingly the ISTD handbook completely avoids the issue!

At the end of the day of course it makes no difference to the way the figure is danced. The only figure where the books really differ is the three step. Again, Guy Howard's LRL version makes more sense to me.

"Whilst I am happy with the idea that the time value of the step is not completed until the feet pass, that definition of the end of a step seems inconsistent with the charted descriptions. For example, if step 2 ends when the LF passes the RF on its way back down the LOD, why does the description of step 3 say "continue to turn on ball of RF"."

The baseline situation here is that we have rotation of the standing RF during the time when the Left foot is moving towards the right foot but has not yet passed it.

I think the answer is that the description you quote doesn't come from a chart as used in the revised technique or its descendent the ISTD manual, it comes from an older-style word description which was written in plainer language in terms of the leg swing associated with step 3, rather than in terms of the strict step boundary system limits of step 3.

In actuality, in the chart system of the revised technique, turn is usually notated as being between the steps - not that it occurs instantly on the dividing lines, but that it generally corresponds to the angle between the given alignments for each step.