The NFR in the waltz turns must, at least partialy, reflect the the differential of travel of the two partners imposed by the need to turn in a closed regime (in that sense, it is partly caused by the turn) The difference in the foxtrot is that this differential is reduced because of the open finish.

"She can't place the foot in its pointing alignment unless she has made the required body turn."

Not quite correct. A pointing alignment is one in which the body alignment and the foot alignment do not match - the foot has made the turn, but the body has not yet made as much of it.

Something to keep in mind however is that the lady will not actually end up with her feet spanning the old and new alignments - if she is doing a static demonstration and stops midway through she might create that position, but it doesn't actually occur when dancing through as there is instead a smooth evolution from the position of the left foot to the position of the right - they don't really occur at the same time.

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

Severely mistaken. The presence of turn drastically changes the character and technique of rise.

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

The lack of NFR in the foxtrot reverse turn is not a red herring, but rather an important example key to understanding why NFR does or does not occur.

"Of course, the style difference is that there is no gradual rise, as typical in waltz."

Correct in words but wrong in interpretation. There is actually a gradual gain of altitude in foxtrot - gentler in fact than that of waltz, however the system of description used by the book cannot accurately represent this as the continuation of rise is in the closing separation of the legs, not in the feet which are largely what the book means when it speaks of rise - to accurately represent foxtrot altitude trends, it would have to say something like "continue rising not in the feet but as the legs swing to pass, then start falling not in the feet but as the legs swing apart"

"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."

Again, correct in words but wrong in interpretation. To better understand why, compare to the situation of the quick open reverse where it is the lady on the inside of the turn. The given rise and fall will be the same except that lady does have NFR and her footwork is TH, unlike the man's foot rise and THT of the feather finish. The man has foot rise because as the man he is not under the swing in the way the lady would be if she were on the inside - he starts out almost as if he will be under, but as the feather finish blends towards something commencing more of a forward feather, he needs to be somewhat on top, and that requires the slight spring or rise in his foot.

To clarify, can I ask in relation to the lady's steps of the natural turn, where is her LF aligned (a) at the point where her RF reaches its final position (rotation aside) and weight is transferred into step 2, and (b) at the end of step 2, using, as you do, the convention that e/o refers to the point midway to closure on 3.

it seems obvious that by point b the LF will have moved some from its orientation at the end of 1, but its orientation at point a - which seems to be the more crucial point - is less obvious - it is this that dictates the degree of "waddle" that people often debate.

I think I understand why the THT is used for the man on 4 the reverse turn. i am not so clear why the situation should be any different for 1 of the qor for the lady. wonder if you coud iluminate. thanks.

"I think I understand why the THT is used for the man on 4 the reverse turn. i am not so clear why the situation should be any different for 1 of the qor for the lady. wonder if you coud iluminate. thanks."

The man has foot rise because his more dominant role in the partnership means he is not as simply under the swing as the lady would be if she were on the inside - he starts out almost as if he will be under, but as the feather finish blends towards something commencing more of a forward feather, he needs to be somewhat on top, and that requires the slight spring or rise in his foot. The lady staying underneath would not have the same kind of spring in her comparable action.

You can see another example of the role-difference in footwork comparing the three step and feather to the reverse wave and back feather - the lady going backwards has TH TH TH, but the man does his comparable backwards actions as TH T TH.

im not sure exactly what you mean by under, under the swing, and on top. could you explain please.

on the other example - another one i have always pondered on - as i understand it,the reason for the lady lowering her heel on backward up steps is to avoid impeding the man's progress. but i never understood why this wasnt an issue when the situation is reversed. is it something to do with lead and follow maybe ?

"im not sure exactly what you mean by under, under the swing, and on top. could you explain please.

on the other example - another one i have always pondered on - as i understand it,the reason for the lady lowering her heel on backward up steps is to avoid impeding the man's progress. but i never understood why this wasnt an issue when the situation is reversed. is it something to do with lead and follow maybe ?"

It is the under vs. on top aspect again. Look at the difference in body position for the two partners - there's a lot of similarity between what the men and women do, but there are unique differences of role as well.

so your'e saying that the different footwork relects the lady's more backward poise ?

"so your'e saying that the different footwork relects the lady's more backward poise ?"

I'd hesitate to call it "backward" as that easily gives the wrong idea, but yes the lady's footwork is different in large part to be compatible with the element of her poise that you had in mind when you wrote that. Or you might say that both the footwork and the poise are part of her role in the couple, vs. the man's role and his footwork and poise.