"being on the inside of a turn is one of the more common causes of NFR

How, exactly, does being on the inside of a turn, "cause" NFR? That has to be one of the silliest things I've ever read here."

It's a quite natural result of making allowances for your partner's travel and upswing.

"When I step back, TH, and start to rise e/o 1, I do so with NFR."

I hope you don't always do that. It is after all an application defined action, and I'm sure our friend Don/Quickstep/Serendipity will be along to remind you of a very important situation when your action on the inside of the turn should NOT result in NFR.

"If I am turning, my heel will not release until I have my full weight on the next step, ended to the side, and I could hardly do otherwise; but if I was not turning, the rise would still be characterised by NFR."

But it would be a very different sort of NFR if you were not turning - you would roll your weight through the heel and release the toe.

"It wasn't "caused" by the turn, and has no effect on the way that the turn is executed."

On the contrary it clearly is caused by the turn, because it would be a very different type of NFR action if there were no turn - and in the case of one particular type of turn, it is not NFR at all.

It is the specific type of movement created into step one that determines the nature of the foot action which will occur upon arrival and dancing through the foot. Two of the common situations can be characterized by NFR, but they are still two very different sorts of NFR.

It's a quite natural result of going backwards! I'm not taking the bait. See ya!

"It's a quite natural result of making allowances for your partner's travel and upswing.

It's a quite natural result of going backwards! I'm not taking the bait. See ya!"

Except that you are wrong - because you ignore a very common situation where going stepping backwards initially TH, initiating turn, and rising at the end of one does not result in having no foot rise.

It's not simply a result of going backwards, or of turning, but of using one of a particular set of ways of going backwards and possibly turning - as a result it doesn't always occur, because it is not always one of the ways that cause it that is appropriate to use.

There isn't a set of ways to dance a natural turn in waltz, but one way. Alex Moore says commence to rise at end of 1 (N.F.R). Is he wrong?

"There isn't a set of ways to dance a natural turn in waltz, but one way. Alex Moore says commence to rise at end of 1 (N.F.R). Is he wrong?"

There are a set of ways to take a backwards step.

One of those ways, which ends up as a natural turn, causes NFR.

Another of those ways which ends up as a feather step causes NFR.

One of those ways which ends up as a reverse turn causes NFR.

And many other ways ending up as many other common figures, mostly causing NFR.

However there is also a way of taking a backwards step that ends up as something else very common, which does not cause NFR.

To Whome It May Concern. After the lady has taken the first step and her foot is flat on the floor and has pointed step two to the side, i am taught that she will be facing diag to the centre. Any premeture turning of the body will result in she arriving before the man. You have then lost your initial position with each other, the position you started with started. This is why there is a No Foot Rise for the lady on step one, or the person on the inside of the turn. Where this rule does not apply is for the man on step four of a Reverse Turn in the International Foxtrot as is explained in the books..
Should a Pro know the book. Doesn't that speak for itself.

Cyd... you need to realise that the " book " is a guide, and that there are occasions where some techn. is modified .

How the book describes 1.2.3 of a Nat. in Waltz and how it is danced at Prof. levels is entirely different .

She can't place the foot in its pointing alignment unless she has made the required body turn. If she makes her movement early, she is just dancing out of time.



The pattern of rise has nothing to do with the turn.



You need to pay closer attention to the text. Of course there is NFR for man on 4 of a foxtrot reverse turn. There isn't any body rise either: the R&F is "down". So your theory doesn't work: even though the foxtrot turn is open, rather than closed, the "inside turn" action is present in 4-6, and there is the usual division of turn (just as for the waltz equivalent), but the R&F pattern is that proper to foxtrot.

Rather obviously, the NFR action is not "caused" by the turn which is to follow.

Really ? there is both foot rise and body rise on step 4 (or at least at the e/o 4). the reason NFR isnt used here is because there is body rise too - the footwork is THT and the next step is up.

Quite right. But there's nothing like a red herring to bring out all the sock puppets...

Of course, the style difference is that there is no gradual rise, as typical in waltz. So no "start to rise e/o" one step and then continue to rise: instead, we have rise e/o 4, and hence the footwork THT. That rolling through the foot action mostly comes from the movement from one open position to another open position, and moving to an "Up" position, rather than continuing to rise. It still has nothing, directly, do do with the turn.