IDSF rules on who can represent at Worlds

[Laura]

Since so many of USA Dance's rules appear to be derived from the IDSF rules, I took a look at the IDSF web site to see what they have to say about who can represent at Worlds. I was curious to know if the current USA Dance rules were out of line as compared to what the IDSF allows.

What I found was quite interesting:

2. Couples of mixed citizenship.
2.1. A couple can only represent a country in any IDSF Championship or Cup if one of the partners holds a valid and subsisting passport of the represented country at the time of registration and the time of the relevant competition.

So it seems to me that USA Dance's rules that allow two non-citizens to compete at Nationals and perhaps win representation to Worlds does not follow the IDSF's rules? And that, as they are written right now, are in fact less restrictive than the IDSF's rules?

If I'm reading this right, it seems inconsistent to me that USA Dance is appearing to picking and choosing which IDSF rules it wants to make sure everyone follows. Like, they were so adamant about the costume stuff, yet this other thing is going on at the same time?

[Kitty]

is there nothing in the IDSF rules regarding permanent residents of a country?

does that count for anything?

[Alskling]

is there nothing in the IDSF rules regarding permanent residents of a country?

does that count for anything?

Sounds like IDSF is trying to be in sync with the IOC, which is quite tough on citizenship for Olympic representation, if I remember correctly from figure-skating issues with international pairs. Lots of emergency petitions from skaters for expedited U.S. citizenship.

[Adwiz]

In the case of DanceSport, one member must be a citizen of the country. The other doesn't need to be a citizen, but I think they must have the rights to travel freely in and out of the country. This means that some restrictive visas would not be accepted.

The idea behind that was to minimize the possibility of two very strong partners from different countries coming together during a relatively small time frame for the sole purpose of trying for a national and/or world title, leaving behind other couples that were truly dedicated to dancing together. For example, if you had a Russian dancer come to the USA to dance with a strong American competitor, training for six months or so with no goal other than to take the national title, placing high in a world championship, and then heading back to Russia with no intention of committing to the partnership. This scenario isn't as far fetched as it might appear -- it has actually happened according to someone I talked to who is on the IDSF presidium. This rule gives the "genuine" couples a fighting chance to truly represent their country.

[Laura]

Shoot, I thought I was replying to this post and what I was really doing was over-writing it by editing it. Oops.

It said "valid and and subsisting passport" for one of the members of the partnership, and nothing about Permanent Residency. I searched the whole document for the words "permanent" and "residency," and they were not to be found. So, the IDSF is mute on the subject of Permanent Residency.

Kitty, I have some more info for you here. The IDSF doesn't use the words "Permanent Residency" because (and I quote from some old IDSF minutes), the term "has different meanings in different countries and under different legal systems - in immigration laws, in criminal laws. Different countries have very different requirements for 'permanent resident.' "

So, that's why I couldn't find "Permanent Residency" anywhere. As to what this all means for someone who has the legal status of "Permanent Resident" in the US vis-a-vis the IDSF I don't know. I'm not even going to try to guess!

[Alskling]

Since so many of USA Dance's rules appear to be derived from the IDSF rules, I took a look at the IDSF web site to see what they have to say about who can represent at Worlds. I was curious to know if the current USA Dance rules were out of line as compared to what the IDSF allows.

What I found was quite interesting:



So it seems to me that USA Dance's rules that allow two non-citizens to compete at Nationals and perhaps win representation to Worlds does not follow the IDSF's rules? And that, as they are written right now, are in fact less restrictive than the IDSF's rules?

If I'm reading this right, it seems inconsistent to me that USA Dance is appearing to picking and choosing which IDSF rules it wants to make sure everyone follows. Like, they were so adamant about the costume stuff, yet this other thing is going on at the same time?

I guess the real crux of the matter is whether or not USA Dance follows the IDSF rule when selecting world teams, regardless of who is allowed to dance at Nationals. From my understanding, though, the intent of the citizenship/residency rules currently on the books was to make sure that anyone dancing at Nationals in a world team selection event could actually *go* to Worlds, since there was at least one case that I'm aware of where the winners of a U.S. title didn't have visas that allowed them to leave the U.S. and return, and so an alternate couple had to be sent. That particular issue is clearly addressed in the current USA Dance rules, but it seems there might be a loophole with regard to IDSF rules. It's also possible that the original intent no longer holds true, but I'd be curious to know why the discrepancy. It does certainly seem that in the current environment you could very well end up with a titleholder who would not be eligible to represent.

[Throwaway Overshare]

IDSF rules changed in 2005. I can think of non-citizen dancers whose entire dance career from their first lesson occured in the US. For purposes of USA Dance's championship, a pair of them really should be allowed. Let IDSF elgibility be a side issue; IDSF is just a bunch of busybodies anyway.

[Laura]

I can think of non-citizen dancers whose entire dance career from their first lesson occured in the US. For purposes of USA Dance's championship, a pair of them really should be allowed.
Well, in this case (and leaving the IDSF out of it), without knowing any names or gossiping, I would say if their "whole career" has been longer than 12 months, then they are both already allowed by current published USA Dance rules as far as the 'residency of non-citizens' part of the rules go. There's nothing under the current rules preventing them from doing USA Dance Nationals so long as they meet the other requirements, like being able to travel out of and back into the US, and doing a Regional, and not representing another country or doing another country's Nationals within the past 12 months.

Is your point here that the IDSF is wacky? Well, judging from all the well-nigh incomprehensible mail that comes and goes between them and the WDC I'm not going to disagree with that! I just thought the IDSF wording was interesting as compared to the USA Dance wording. After all, the IDSF has been accepting who USA Dance sends to Worlds, no matter how one reads the IDSF rule.

[Alskling]

IDSF rules changed in 2005. I can think of non-citizen dancers whose entire dance career from their first lesson occured in the US. For purposes of USA Dance's championship, a pair of them really should be allowed. Let IDSF elgibility be a side issue; IDSF is just a bunch of busybodies anyway.

I have no problem with anyone who meets the existing eligibility rules dancing Nationals, whether they're IDSF-eligible or not. As Laura noted, there is nothing preventing them from doing so, citizen or not, other than the not unduly onerous 12 month requirement. And who dances, or does not dance, at Nationals, is USA Dance's business, not IDSF's.

I'm not convinced that USA Dance as a body, however, has the luxury of deciding that IDSF rules are "wacky" and can be ignored when selecting who goes to world championships. I have no idea if USA Dance has complied with the new rule or not, to date, but not doing so would seem to be a risky business.

[Throwaway Overshare]

In other news, NDCA apparently just got a new WDC rule of the same sort modified to include permanent residents. I wonder if that is meant to apply to pros or somehow to amateurs? Does WDC even sanction any international amateur championships? Or are they now planning to as tit-for-tat for the IPDSC "pro" events?

[Laura]

In other news, NDCA apparently just got a new WDC rule of the same sort modified to include permanent residents. I wonder if that is meant to apply to pros or somehow to amateurs? Does WDC even sanction any international amateur championships? Or are they now planning to as tit-for-tat for the IPDSC "pro" events?
In the context of what "Permanent Resident" means in the US, I think it was a good change that the WDC/NDCA made.

I don't think the WDC sanctions any international amateur competitions, I wonder if this was done more to make things clearer/simpler for Pros based in the US.

But then one never knows....

[White Chacha]

So the interesting thing to me here is that USA Dance (formerly USABDA) appears to be somewhat two-faced here. It's OK to have rules that aren't in sync with IDSF and to cull out non-compliant couples for the world games in some cases, but not in others.

For instance, the argument against allowing same-sex couples in USA Dance events has always been that they wouldn't be eligible to participate at the world level. That's clearly not the main reason as they've proven by other exceptions.

[Joe]

You do know that a lot of the people at the top of USAD are fuddy-duddies?

[White Chacha]

Don't know about that. I do know that a lady friend of mine, who's a talented leader, was able one year to dance at MAC and then not again when they became a (then USABDA) regional. Petitioning didn't help.

[Kitty]

So the interesting thing to me here is that USA Dance (formerly USABDA) appears to be somewhat two-faced here. It's OK to have rules that aren't in sync with IDSF and to cull out non-compliant couples for the world games in some cases, but not in others.

For instance, the argument against allowing same-sex couples in USA Dance events has always been that they wouldn't be eligible to participate at the world level. That's clearly not the main reason as they've proven by other exceptions.

why can't people respect if USA Dance wants to have come rules of their own? that's perfectly normal.

I think usually people complain about the rules that are unreasonable or difficult to enforce.. if on top of that they are not IDSF requirements, people really really don't like them..

but i still don't see why a national organization cannot have some rules more lax or more strict than the IDSF rules..

[Throwaway Overshare]

It can. The complaint is that USA Dance keeps using "IDSF requires" as an excuse when they want to do something, and then turning around and ignoring what the IDSF requires when what it requires is something they don't want to do.

[Kitty]

It can. The complaint is that USA Dance keeps using "IDSF requires" as an excuse when they want to do something, and then turning around and ignoring what the IDSF requires when what it requires is something they don't want to do.

i don't see that being a problem.

I used to think differently.. but now i think USA dance can handle internal affairs any way it wants to as long as 1) it has clear philosophy and reasons for it... the philosophy is serving the interests of its members; and 2) the couples sent to worlds are IDSF eligible, and the organization is not breaking any other IDSF rules.

[NielsenE]

the issue is that USA Dance is apparently is NOT using a clear philosophy/reasons. Before it looked like they were using "IDSF requires" as an apologetic excuse for unpopular rule changes, but apparently they are willing to skirt IDSF rules when it suits them. That's not clear. If they have other reasons and philosophy fine, just don't hide behind "IDSF requires" if they won't follow the IDSF rules....

[Alskling]

i don't see that being a problem.

I used to think differently.. but now i think USA dance can handle internal affairs any way it wants to as long as 1) it has clear philosophy and reasons for it... the philosophy is serving the interests of its members; and 2) the couples sent to worlds are IDSF eligible, and the organization is not breaking any other IDSF rules.

I agree with you, but as the poster about same sex couples mentioned, a new rationalization for the ban on same sex couples would have to be established, if the prohibition on non-IDSF eligible couples dancing Nationals were lifted. I am REALLY curious to see what that answer might be. The IDSF rule was very convenient in that regard. I suspect a "because some people think it's icky" rationale would be harder to defend.

[Laura]

For instance, the argument against allowing same-sex couples in USA Dance events has always been that they wouldn't be eligible to participate at the world level.
Well, leaving inconsistent interpretation and application of the rules aside, and just sticking to what is published, the IDSF says that a couple must be made up of one male and one female:
Couples

1. Definition of a couple:

A couple consists of a male and a female partner


But anyway, I agree -- USA Dance shouldn't be using "because the IDSF says so" to justify rules some of the time and then appear to be breaking other IDSF rules when it is convenient so as to 'raise the standing of the US in international competitions.' It just seems arbitrary, and when an organization appears arbitrary they undermine their own strength and legitimacy as an organizing and governing body.

It's quite clear to me that a good number of dancers in the US have little or no respect for USA Dance, and I think that apparant inconsistent interpretation, application, and enforcement of their own rules is a contributing factor to this lack of respect. Also, I think lack of clear communication on USA Dance's part is another factor: for instance, when exceptions or alternate interpretations are made to the rules, I feel that if they were explained to everyone in a clear and logical manner, that would help people to understand USA Dance and to respect their decisions.

[Alskling]

Well, leaving inconsistent interpretation and application of the rules aside, and just sticking to what is published, the IDSF says that a couple must be made up of one male and one female:

Yep, but if we went to a model where internal USA Dance affairs are handled without reference to IDSF rules except in choosing world reps, what then?

[Throwaway Overshare]

Well, leaving inconsistent interpretation and application of the rules aside, and just sticking to what is published, the IDSF says that a couple must be made up of one male and one female:

So IDSF gets to determine which syllabus dancer wears the pants, but apparently not who goes to an IDSF competition?

[NielsenE]

Well, leaving inconsistent interpretation and application of the rules aside, and just sticking to what is published, the IDSF says that a couple must be made up of one male and one female:

way off topic, but notice that IDSF doesn't define the leader as male and the follower as female so a reverse role couple would be considered legal. USA Dance on the other hand I believe does define the leader to be male.

[Kitty]

way off topic, but notice that IDSF doesn't define the leader as male and the follower as female so a reverse role couple would be considered legal. USA Dance on the other hand I believe does define the leader to be male.

because the US is always ahead of the rest of the planet in coming up with this stuff..

believe me in Eastern Europe no one would come up with the idea for a reverse role partnership... if a girl has a male partenr why should they invent all of this instead of practicing the dancing inthe traditional way..
hence it is not necessary in Europe to specify who is leading and who is following..

[Musique]

A news related to the WDC rule:

Political Fire

Monday, following a Danish motion, the WDC voted to mandate that a couple must be CITIZENS of the country they represent in professional world championships. US Delegates, Brian McDonald and Katusha Demidova successfully lobbied to have the USA excluded from this requirement, the only country to be so. US citizenship is difficult and time consuming to acquire, and if the US was bound by the citizenship requirement, our ranks of eligible contestants would be very short indeed! Brian and Katusha, you saved the day for the US Championships!

From dancebeat.com

[Throwaway Overshare]

NDCA website reports the WDC rule a bit differently - in particular only one citizen needed and the permanent resident addition being uniform, not an exemption.

DANCE SPORT MEETING
On another note, at the Dance Sport Meeting a key amendment proposed by the USA to the rule change proposed by Denmark for National representation at international championships was passed. Denmark�s proposal would require that at least one half of a partnership hold �
1. Citizenship of the country by birth or naturalization
2. Citizenship of the country by the procedure legally recognized in that country

USA was able to add �
3. Resident of the country holding �permanent legal residence� status

Wonder which is correct?

(Also, not all US pros are even permanent residents!)

[Laura]

way off topic, but notice that IDSF doesn't define the leader as male and the follower as female so a reverse role couple would be considered legal. USA Dance on the other hand I believe does define the leader to be male.
USA Dance does not in the most recent rule book:
2.1.29. A “Couple” is comprised of one male and one female DanceSport Athlete.
Neither does the NDCA.

[Alskling]

because the US is always ahead of the rest of the planet in coming up with this stuff

Actually, quite a few countries in Western Europe might disagree with this assessment, in so far as dealing with same sex couples is concerned. But that's even further off topic, so 'nuff said. :)

[Alskling]

USA Dance does not in the most recent rule book:

Neither does the NDCA.

I'd be curious to see what would happen if a couple tried to compete with a female leader/male follower in an actual comp. I vaguely remember hearing about a case quite a while ago where someone tried this, the organizers freaked, and then ultimately threw them out based on dress code (leader must wear tails, follower must wear a ballgown).

[Kitty]

Actually, quite a few countries in Western Europe might disagree with this assessment, in so far as dealing with same sex couples is concerned. But that's even further off topic, so 'nuff said. :)

how do they deal with that? maybe someone should reopen a different topic to discuss this one more time.

I believe there are same sex competitions in the US as well.. (I've seen it myself! on youtube:-)). They are just not USA DAnce sanctioned. Why wouldn't we want to keep it that way?

[Laura]

They are just not USA Dance sanctioned. Why wouldn't we want to keep it that way?
Why wouldn't we want to change it? In the US, at least, this becomes a question beyond just sport. (My personal feeling is that it should only be a question of sport, and that there are solutions that would allow for same-sex couples if people would only drop the non-sport implications and focus on doing something for the dancers.)

I'll open up a new topic for this, as Kitty suggested, in case anyone wants to talk about it. Head on over to http://www.dance-forums.com/showthread.php?p=429966