Wishful thinking... you have never seen (obviously ) some of my beginners !!

"It's obvious that the path that the man's right foot follows from it's placement on step 1 to its placement on step 3 cannot pass through his partner's standing leg, and so will instead be a little bit of a withdrawl and re-extend."

OR, the foot stays outside partner, as Alex Moore states and two other respected technicians infer.

"what is of primary conceptual importance is that there's a switch from being in a classic outside partner position (outside her right foot) on step 1, to being over on the other side of the couple, somewhere near her left foot, on step 3."

Here we differ. That concept probably only appeared as a way to try to justify the name of the step once the original tail whipping action was reduced by the removal of the turn and the introduction of the 'straight' fishtail, or maybe in an attempt to fit the ISTD typo error. In fact a tail whip sideways movement can still be developed but by both partners moving as a couple, not as the man moving to the other side of the lady. Consider the step description. In the straight version both partners dance the normal matching opposite steps:
fwd (back)
cross behind (cross in front)
fwd (back) and slightly side

Nothing in that pattern would cause the man to move to the other side of his lady. They will stay in the same relative positions.

......

"Why all this concern about step three of a Fishtail."
Can that really be a quote from the same Serendipidy that started at least two threads to discuss step 3 of a foxtrot reverse turn?

"OR, the foot stays outside partner, as Alex Moore states"

Then why does he draw the footprint over on the other side of the couple, aimed outside the lady's left foot?

It's outside partner in a manner of speaking alright, but it's outside of her on the other side than the first step was.

"In fact a tail whip sideways movement can still be developed but by both partners moving as a couple, not as the man moving to the other side of the lady."

Indeed it can. I have video of the Hiltons doing it on a presentation of basics with the man's right foot between the lady's which satisfies no possible interpretation of any of the official descriptions.

And you can also do it by staying outside partner on the usual side, but if you do that, you'll need to stay in CBMP as well.

What it comes down to is the the source of this bar-bet trivia "outside partner step without CBMP" is ultimately that the version of the step which lacks CBMP does so because (in that version) it's placed outside on the wrong side of the bodies for CBMP to be possible.

"And you can also do it by staying outside partner on the usual side, but if you do that, you'll need to stay in CBMP as well."

I'm inclined to agree in the case of the straight fishtail though it may be argued that the sideways movement takes the moving foot off the line of the standing foot so not CBMP (a foot position) by the strict definition but certainly in a CBMP like body position.

However, in the case of the fishtail with 1/4 turn, which was originally the only version, the turn between 2 & 3 definitely takes the step off a strict CBMP line. We still have body turn towards our partner but we are not stepping on or over the line of the standing foot so it is not CBMP.

......

"Do you really care where the third step goes."

Possibly not, but I do care if there is an unrecognised mis-print in the ISTD book, and I do need to think about how I teach the figure.

"I saw a teacher who was having trouble... He modified it.... By doing it that way with the right side leading followed by the left seemed to work."

Yes it does, but it's not a fishtail. There's no right side lead in a fishtail.

"Possibly not, but I do care if there is an unrecognised mis-print in the ISTD book, and I do need to think about how I teach the figure."

Considering that the alleged "misprint" matches the foot position shown in a diagram drawn years before, it sure doesn't look like a misprint.

Instead, it seems to be a different type of fishtail than the one you dance. I've seen several of those, many of which are completely inverted or re-ordered compared to the book one(s).

Anonymous. What needs to be taken into consideration is that the guy who wrote the words didn't do all of the charts, most of the work was done by a pupil named Edward Youel. I thought that was common knowledge but evidentially not.
The tragic thing about the words as well as the charts is. If you were having an examination to become a teacher and on a Spin Turn you said for the man step four does not go straight back down the LOD. You might fail. And yet we all know that step four for the man goes diag to wall. Simply because two people cannot occupy the same space at the same time, one has to move out of the other persons way. Still keeping contact though. The book is full of this. But Alex covered himself by saying the book was never meant to be taken with a Parrot like mentality. Squark Squark

The 4th step direction has since been ammended .
And yes, the commom mistake is that many believe the " book " is cast in stone.. it is, and was, always meant as a tool for exams, and as a GUIDE for standardisation .

( thats why its called REVISED !!.... dance evolves )

I've just checked the drawings in the 4th edition and in that one the third step is definitely outside to the left of the partner's RF.

Wouldn't it be nice if the technique books came with notes describing the changes made like some software does. Then we would be sure to notice them and we could be sure that any changes were deliberate and not bugs. (see ISTD book, July 1994, p83, m Underturned Tipple Chasse to R, man's steps)

Dancing does evolve but I would be happier knowing it evolved for valid reasons.

Re the spin turn, I still teach the 4th step down LOD toe turned in. That way there is a good chance it will be danced diag to wall. If taught DW, many will anticipate the turn and step back to Wall.

Social Dancer. We were discussing the Fourth step of a Natural Spin Turn. Whether it is correct to, for both the man and the lady, to take that step straight down the LOD.
I think it would make it easier if we think of the setup between the man and the lady is like a circle drawn on a piece of paper. The person facing forward , the man, is facing North, the lady is backing to the North East. Turn the piece of paper a few degrees clockwise. Now the man is facing to the N. E. and the lady is... She is still in the same position in relataion to the man but has naturally moved out of his way. Is that making it too simple.
With the Fourth step of the Spin Turn the roles are now reversed.
Be carefull with the turning of the foot inwards less the person uses the outside of the toe rather than more towards the inside.
Something else to look for is the foreward step into a turn how some turn the foot out on a forward step. This has to be nipped in the bud.
People who do not have a natural turn out of the feet in Standard have a distinct advantage over those that have. Which when we do Latin becomes the opposite. C'est La Vie. That' s Life
These are the little things that should be checked even at a Social level.

"Be carefull with the turning of the foot inwards less the person uses the outside of the toe rather than more towards the inside."

In fact, the turn in of a backwards CBM step will properly cause the initial placement to be on the outside of the toe, but the body weight will immediately go across to the inside of the foot rather than remaining on the outside.