Floor Craft.... Or lack of

[bigdjiver]

There are dangers on a crowded dancefloor, where vigorous activity is taking place, where inexperienced, uncoordinated and irresponsible people may be dancing, where sharp objects may be present and entangling clothes, and alcohol is served.

The invited should be awate of that, and has to consent to the dance. There is a joint responsibility for accepting the situation. The alternative is not to invite and not to accept when the floor is full.

The last two times my partner has had her back barged into has been where I did a step across. She had moved into the position I just vacated. I do not feel in the least bit responsible for the first incident, apart from inviting her onto a busy floor.

The second incident, at a different dance? Perhaps I should have learned and adapted the step across to be a step around, or remove the move from my repetoire. Extrapolating, the safest way would seem to be to dance with the lady in one corner of the room, and have her fixed on that one spot, with me between her and the action.
I do have a real problem fitting the concepts of MJ and defensive dancing together.

[Raul]

We are probably talking at cross purposes. Both dancers generally look out fot space, the leader chooses the moves and the manner that they are executed, and the follower generally complies. Neither can totally predict the actions of others dancers especially on a crowded floor. So an accident happens.

It is incorrect to say that it is the Leaders fault. (it may not be)
It is incorrect to say that both are responsible. (it may not be either)
It is incorrect to say that the follower is the victim. (not always)

We all agree that dancing has its dangers and that everyone should pay attention to the people around us. We all agree that dancing skills vary from person to person. As long as no one is patently negligent why blame anybody?

[happygoldfish]

Oh come on!

Have I got this right? … You did exactly the same thing twice … and you got exactly the same result twice … ?

If another follower is about to be led by you into the same move, in what sense is it partly her responsibilty if she gets injured?

Maybe if she knows your track record on that move, she has the option of going floppy and refusing to do the final turn-out.

But if she doesn't know, and if she's cooperating, surely the responsibility is entirely yours?

As you yourself say …

Perhaps I should have learned and adapted the step across to be a step around, or remove the move from my repetoire.

The point is, it's your decision. And if it's your decision, then isn't it your responsibility? How is it even partly hers?

the safest way would seem to be to dance with the lady in one corner of the room, and have her fixed on that one spot, with me between her and the action.

I assume you're trying to be sarcastic. But you've accidentally said something that's true.

That is the safest way – but your step-acrosses are a more dangerous way, and it's the leader's responsibility to make a choice, presumably somewhere in between.

Sarcastically implying that one choice is unacceptable to most followers does not absolve you from making any choice at all.

That's a deliberate denial of responsibility!
Or, if you didn't intend to be sarcastic … a Freudian denial of responsibility!

I do not feel in the least bit responsible for the first incident, apart from inviting her onto a busy floor.

You may not feel at fault, but surely you accept some responsibility?

It was your decision to do the move.

And, half-way through, when you were looking over your left shoulder and therefore had a perfectly clear view of the target area, it was your decision to continue with the move.

Yet you still pulled her left arm down in the standard way, turning her 180°, and propelling her, to full-arms-length, backwards into "the position I just vacated", which you are now facing, and she now isn't!

And, assuming the idiots didn't "come from nowhere", you must have seen them, and seen the collision developing, and it was your decision not to try to suddenly stop her.

You had plenty of decisions to make. None of them were her decisions. They were all your decisions.

How is it her responsibility? And, with all those decisions, how is it not yours?

To be fair to you, just because it's your responsibility, it doesn't mean it's your fault. As I've already said, it's sometimes a judgment call – if you genuinely decide it'll be a near-miss … and it isn't … then you may well have discharged your responsibility correctly, and not be at fault. But it was stiil your responsibility, and not hers.

On the other hand, to be fair to your partner, the "prosecution case" against you does seem almost unanswerable.

I do have a real problem fitting the concepts of MJ and defensive dancing together.

Erm … I believe you!

[Clueless]

When leaving the dance floor but I look round for people still dancing and give them a wide berth just in case the desire to do some big flashy move.

9/10 I am at the side of the floor so I can easily walk off when the dance is over without getting in anyones way.

[bigdjiver]

Have I got this right? …

er .. No.

You did exactly the same thing twice … and you got exactly the same result twice … ?

I have done almost the same thing something 30,000 times, and have only seen two such incidents. Different partners, different venues.

If another follower is about to be led by you into the same move, in what sense is it partly her responsibilty if she gets injured? ...The point is, it's your decision. And if it's your decision, then isn't it your responsibility? How is it even partly hers?

I am responsible for inviting her onto a crowded dance floor. I am responsible for looking out for approaching danger. I am responsible for leading her into a space that I know is not occupied. There is one moment in the step across where we are both looking in the same direction and at that moment someone decided to propel their partner into the space that I had been occupying whilst we were performing a very standard and easily recognisable move. I would describe it as the other couple invading our slot. Almost any move I had chosen would still have resulted in a collision, only it would mostly have been me that would have been hit.
We all have blind spots. We all know that, and we are all responsible for stepping out onto a dancefloor.

I assume you're trying to be sarcastic. But you've accidentally said something that's true.

You assume wrong, and there is nothing accidental about it. I do take my partner into quiet corners at every opportunity. The first incident we were dancing by the stage, the second my partner had refused the vacant carpeted area and requested the dancefloor.

And, assuming the idiots didn't "come from nowhere", you must have seen them, and seen the collision developing, and it was your decision not to try to suddenly stop her.

Why "idiots"? Without the benefit of slow motion replay I do not know how it occurred. I should have thought it was obvious that nobody saw it coming, it was almost back to back collision. I suspect both cases were inexperienced and over-exuberant followers moving into the wrong space for the move they were performing.

[ducasi]

Floorcraft is primarily the leader's responsibility. But in the same way that the leader should watch the space around the follower and not lead her into (and/or lead her out of) dancer, so the follower should watch the space around the leader and lead him out of danger if he doesn't see it.

Example... I'd doing an armjive and an out-of-control dancer collides into my back. I am not looking behind me, I am looking around my partner. However my partner has a fairly good chance of being able to see what's happening behind my back and should alert me to the approaching danger as best she can.

Therefore there's a shared responsibility.

There are also times when a follower who should know better dances themselves into trouble. While the leader can sometimes help steer them to safety, some dancers sometimes just don't want saving.

Example... Some followers sometimes do a "check check" on the step back and use their arm to add a little extra style. There's little the leader can do to stop that arm hitting someone who happens to be in the wrong place during that moment when the follower decides a little bit extra style is needed.

There is shared responsibility.

[happygoldfish]

The arguments I hate most are arguments with people who are entirely in agreement with me – they always seem to last the longest!!

ducasi, you're the third person who seems to be agreeing with me without actually saying so.

Let's check:

I'm saying that, in cases of injury or potential injury to a cooperating follower (not injury to the leader), trying to avoid the injury is the leader's responsibility, and is not partly the follower's responsibility.

I'm also saying, of course, that I don't object to a leader saying "I discharged that responsibility, so the injury to my partner wasn't my fault."

But I do object to a leader (with a cooperating follower) ever saying "I had no responsiblilty," or "It was partly the follower's responsiblilty".

Now, I agree entirely with your first paragraph, beginning …

Floorcraft is primarily the leader's responsibility …

… and dealing with the follower's responsibility in relation to danger to the leader.

(grumble: btw, I do wish people wouldn't unnecessarily quote huge swathes of previous posts, particularly when they're agreeing with them!)

I agree entirely with your second paragraph, giving a helpful specific example of danger to a leader.

And I agree entirely with your third paragraph …

Therefore there's a shared responsibility.

… assuming that you're still talking about danger to the leader.

I agree entirely with your fourth paragraph, in which you talk about the shared responsiblity of what I call a non-cooperating follower.

And I agree entirely with your fifth paragraph, giving a helpful specific example of a non-cooperating follower.

And I agree entirely with your sixth (final) paragraph …

There is shared responsibility.

… assuming that you're still talking about a non-cooperating follower.

Your whole post is an excellent example of brief but well-constructed argument, supported by specific examples, with clear conclusions (and even without wasting space with quotes).

… I bet there's going to be a "but" somewhere here …

But … your arguments and examples deal only with injury to leaders, and with non-cooperating followers.

You haven't given any argument or example dealing with my case (and, I think, BeccaB's original case, which started this thread) – of injury or potential injury to a cooperating follower (not injury to the leader).

I look forward to your agreeing with me with argument and example more succint and authoritative than my record shows I'm capable of!

[NZ Monkey]

You haven't given any argument or example dealing with my case (and, I think, BeccaB's original case, which started this thread) – of injury or potential injury to a cooperating follower (not injury to the leader).

There's still a shared responsibility Happygoldfish. If the follower is co-operating then:

1: The leader doesn't see the danger and neither does the follower. Quite possibly some other tools fault entirely, but that doesn't help either of you. Chances are neither of you were looking out for each other very well though.

2: The leader sees the danger but the follower doesn't: He's a tool.

3: The leader doesn't see the danger but the follower does. If she doesn't abort then she isn't taking responsibility for her own actions, and deserves anything she gets. She may also need to stop her partner entirely if he's the one in danger.

That's a pretty equal distribution of responsibility for floorcraft in my opinion.

[frodo]

...The other problem was that as a song ended people weren't very careful about coming off the floor and so whilst trying to continue a dance people just walked into me!...

...Ashtons is a nightmare people finish dancing and basically walk into you and dont seem to give a sh1t ...

Assuming this was happening at the end of dances, perhaps those people still dancing should be more considerate of those coming off the floor, rather than blaming them.

.

[bigdjiver]

...You haven't given any argument or example dealing with my case (and, I think, BeccaB's original case, which started this thread) – of injury or potential injury to a cooperating follower ...

The first vehicle collision I ever witnessed was between two drivers who were being as careful as they could be, driving at about 2 m.p.h in narrow interersecting alleyways between buildings. By a billions to one fluke both bonnets emerged at exactly the same time. There was no reasonable way the accident could have been forseen or avoided, short of a man in front with a red flag or mirrors on the corners of every building, or the drivers sounding their horns (7am Sunday morning in amongst blocks of flats - not a good idea).
MJ on crowded dance floors involving dancers with different space awareness is certain to involve collisions. Nobody can always have 360 awareness. One extra couple can move onto the dancefloor and everybody shuffles a bit to accomodate them, and the chain reactions can result in multiple couples shuffling into a collision situation 30 ft away. IMO Everybody involved would be responsible for dancing MJ on a crowded floor. Ceroc organises dance classes. There are going to be people who make mistakes and cannot foresee the results of their actions.

[Raul]

You haven't given any argument or example dealing with my case (and, I think, BeccaB's original case, which started this thread) – of injury or potential injury to a cooperating follower (not injury to the leader).

If I am leading the follower in a step across (to take Bigdjiver's example) and I am reasonably certain that she will step in the space that I have just vacated, but (a) someone behind me loses their balance and decide to fall into that space or (b) one of the flashy dancers waves their arm out and poke her in the eye or (c) she slips over some rubbish on floor or (d) someone whacks me and I fall into her. Is it still my fault?

To take an extreme example, a light fitting falls off the ceiling onto my head and I crash in her direction. Would it still be my fault?

[ducasi]

I'm saying that, in cases of injury or potential injury to a cooperating follower [...], trying to avoid the injury is the leader's responsibility, and is not partly the follower's responsibility.

What is a "cooperating follower"? One who does exactly and only what the leader leads? I hope I don't meet too many of these, as dancing could become rather dull.

Perhaps you really mean by "cooperating follower", one who cooperates in the task of dancing safely, taking their share of the responsibility.

In my example of the follower adding a "check check" to the step back, you have decided this is non-cooperation – this will be because she is not taking responsibility for her own safety.

Yes, because the follower has a responsibility for her own safety on the dance-floor. It is a shared one.

You seem to be saying that so long as the follower is taking responsibility for, then the responsibility is entirely the leader's.

If the follower is taking responsibility, and the leader is responsible, then there is shared responsibility.

How many different ways can different people try to explain this to you?

No-one is trying to deny their responsibility, but if my partner decides to do a rondé during a turn and accidentally collides with someone dancing nearby – how is that my responsibility? I can't lead the lack of a rondé, can I?

[happygoldfish]

In my example of the follower adding a "check check" to the step back, you have decided this is non-cooperation – this will be because she is not taking responsibility for her own safety.

No!!! The "check-check" is fine (in lindy, anyway)!

You're selectively quoting yourself! (I think it's a Freudian thing …)

After the "check-check", you added:

There's little the leader can do to stop that arm hitting someone who happens to be in the wrong place during that moment when the follower decides a little bit extra style is needed.

Surely elbowing someone else in the face (or kicking them with a rondé) is non-cooperation??

And anyway, neither of them involves injury to your follower, whether cooperating or not. You've still avoided dealing with BeccaB's case, which started this thread …

You haven't given any argument or example dealing with my case (and, I think, BeccaB's original case, which started this thread) – of injury or potential injury to a cooperating follower (not injury to the leader).

ducasi, your last post was so good!

Then I agreed with it, entirely, and welcomed your thoughts on the case you hadn't covered.

Which for some reason made you feel compelled to try to give the impression I disagreed with you!

And you still haven't covered that case (injury to a cooperating follower).

Try again?

If I am leading the follower in a step across (to take Bigdjiver's example) … but (a) … (b) … (c) … (d) … Is it still my fault?

Fair examples!

(c) is definitely your fault – the rubbish was in "the space that I have just vacated", so you knew it was there!

(d) is injury to you, so I agree in that situation your partner had a share of responsibility.

(a) and (b) are maybe your fault, maybe not – in similar cases, I've managed to yank my partner out of harm's way, or I've noticed the flashy wavey pokey dancer, and have "danced defensively" – but I agree that's not always possible.

But you're talking about fault, not responsibility.

In (a) (b) and (c), you have 180° awareness of the danger area, and it is your responsibilty to check it, though you may of course discharge that responsibility and not be at fault.

(I think I'd better agree one exception to my general rule – looking for slippery or broken bits of floor is always a shared responsibity! )

To take an extreme example, a light fitting falls off the ceiling onto my head and I crash in her direction. Would it still be my fault?

Are you related to Sir Isaac Newton? Did a light bulb fall on your head as you sat under a tree, and make you think of that? Does a light bulb appear above your head every time you have an idea, and then you have to dodge it?

Erm … to be serious, it's the same as (d)! Your partner had vision and you didn't, so avoiding the light fitting was not your responsibility, and avoiding her was a shared responsibility.

I'm feeling light-headed!

[happygoldfish]

[quote=happygoldfish;393217]Wrong species - should be carp.

Why did a moderator delete that? Everyone knows this forum is full of carp!

BigD … ducasi gave two examples of dancing, each of which clarified the situation he was talking about.

You have had to go completely outside dancing.

And your example is a poor one. Let's analyse it …

The first vehicle collision I ever witnessed …

Ah! So you admit you've seen several collisions! Are you sure they weren't your fault??

… was between two drivers who were being as careful as they could be, driving at about 2 m.p.h …

Erm … "as careful as they could be"? How about 1 m.p.h? Or 0 m.p.h???

(Btw, are you sure you're not guessing? Assuming you weren't standing in the junction, how could you possibly see both vehicles before the collision, to assess how careful the drivers were?)

… {snip} There was no reasonable way the accident could have been forseen or avoided …

D'uhh … 0 m.p.h would have done it! Wouldn't it?

And, since 0 m.p.h is compulsory at many ordinary cross-roads, it's certainly reasonable at "blind" cross-roads!

When I went to Malta, I noticed that there were no give-way markings at cross-roads, and that the technique for "blind" crossroads was to go through at high speed, having first tooted the horn. The tooter was entitled to assume that there was no other approaching car, since it would have tooted also. Must have been a bit annoying to nearby residents. I never witnessed two cars approaching simultaneously, so I don't know whether both would have stopped, or whether the first tooter had right of way.

I expect that, at night, there are other places with a similar rule, but involving headlights instead of horn.

In your example, if there was one give-way line, then that driver should have slowed down or stopped. If there were no give-way lines, and if there was no local rule about tooting or flashing, then both drivers should have stopped!

No matter how narrow these alleyways are, if your front bumper is level with the building line, the driver can still see partly into the side alleys.

This is an open-and-shut case – both drivers were at fault!

(Since they were equally at fault, I expect neither blamed the other. Or did they? You say you "witnessed" the accident. Does that mean there was a case?)

I hope you don't drive like that!

Unfortunately, on the dance-floor, I've noticed that a lot of "good" dancers have exactly the same attitude as your two drivers – "collisions are going to happen sooner or later, so I have no responsibilty to take precautions" – and "if a collision does happen, the other leader will be equally at fault, so neither of us will blame the other!"

… the chain reactions can result in multiple couples shuffling into a collision situation 30 ft away.

Ah! the "30 ft away" excuse! IMO dancers should use that excuse more often!

Nobody can always have 360 awareness.

Agreed. But everyone can always have 180° awareness. Can't they?!

Your two drivers only needed 180°.

And in your own example, in your earlier post, of two step-acrosses in which your partner was injured, you only needed 180°!

Your partner was safely by your side, right hand stretched in the air, unable to move unless you decided to lower it, and from then on your had 180° vision of the target area.

[Raul]

Let me give some other examples

1. Say you and your partner are dancing in the Blues room smooching to slow music and someone who is NOT Woodface does a Woodface spin badly and knock you both sideways. Is it your fault?

Well yes, I would blame you for leading the poor woman astray.

2. You are sitting with your partner on the edge of the floor having a drink and some enthusiastic dancers (the dancing bit of the example) are giving it large on the floor to "Candyman" and accidentally kick you (or your partner) in the shin.

Yes , You are to blame for not escorting your partner outside hearing distance during this rubbish track. At the very least you should have been sitting with your legs hunched up on the chairs with your hands over your ears.

[Stuart M]

There is such a thing as "defensive dancing".

It's not as much fun as normal dancing.

And, if it's done, it has to be done by the leader.

Indeed. And one aspect of defensive dancing is "taking small steps".

Which has to be done by both leader and follower. And it's difficult for a lead to make a follower take small steps.

[Raul]

Indeed. And one aspect of defensive dancing is "taking small steps".

Which has to be done by both leader and follower. And it's difficult for a lead to make a follower take small steps.

May be, use two-handed moves, close embrace or only dance with ladies with very short legs.

Seriouly though, have you noticed that some followers like twisty on the spot moves whilst others do their hiking and dancing in the same evening.

[ducasi]

Happygoldfish...

You define any behaviour by the follower which shows a lack of responsibility for her own safety as "non-cooperation".

This means we are going to have a circular argument. I give an example of what I think is a cooperating follower doing something potentially dangerous, you define it as non-cooperation and say you agree.

You then go on to say the same thing, which is still untrue. The follower's safety is not entirely the leader's responsibility.

Do we have any followers who would like to contribute, as unless HGF changes his argument I'm stepping out of this thread? Beating your head again a brick wall is non-cooperative!

[Raul]

Do we have any followers who would like to contribute, as unless HGF changes his argument I'm stepping out of this thread? Beating your head again a brick wall is non-cooperative!

Have you seen what heating your head against a brick wall does to your Avatar?

[MartinHarper]

I … don't … like … this … culture … of denial of responsiblity!

Actually, the only denial I'm seeing on this thread is yours. You are denying that followers have any responsibility in keeping themselves safe. This works fine for you - you're a leader. You're unlikely to cause any problems on the dance floor by believing that you have sole responsibility for avoiding collisions. I don't post in order to convince you to change that perspective, merely to explain why I don't share it.

I spend time following as well as leading. Accordingly, it is appropriate for me to acknowledge that when I follow I still have a responsibility to help avoid collisions and help keep folks safe. This helps me to be a more considerate follower, aware of my surroundings, styling within the space available, choosing an appropriate level of distance to travel, following the leads/commands/indications/suggestions/hippyspeak of my partner with a modicum of common sense, and so on.

Whether you call this "co-operation" or "shared responsibility" is a semantic argument that I find uninteresting.