Invigilation Procedures

[Chris Stratton]

From the USABDA rulebook:

3.2.1.2. Competitors whose figures are determined by the Invigilator (or Chairman of Judges) not to be
within the prescribed syllabus and ability level classification shall be given a verbal warning if
the violation occurs in a round prior to the final round or reduced to last place in that dance in a
final. Continued violations may be cause for disqualification from the competition by the
Chairman of Judges.

There has sometimes been some confusion about how this rule applies when a violation is first officially noticed during the final. Competitors often feel that if they have not been warned about that action after dancing it in an earlier round, they cannot be penalized in the final. In fact though, the rule doesn't differentiate between a violation that first occurs in a final (for which a penalty must be possible - some of us change choreography on the fly) and an illegal action that previously occured but was not noticed until the final.

While that may be unpopular, I don't think there is any practical alternative for running competitions that leaves the purpose of invigilation intact.

But there's an extended case that can come up, for which a rule change might have some merit. Say a couple is first officially noticed doing an illegal action during the final of one closed syllabus event, and before notified of the penalty for that infraction commits the same violation in another closed event. Can they be penalized for it a second time?

In fairness, it seems like the spirit of the rule - warn them if there is still time for reform, punish them when there is not - suggests that the head table is complicit in any violations occuring between the time when an action is officially noticed and when the competitors are informed of that observation - even if the second violation is in a different event. In other words, if the violation in the first event isn't communicated before the second final is run, the penalty should probably not be applied a second time.

While some kinds of violations deserve little sympathy, such as clearly identifiable figures from the wrong syllabus level, one reason for trying to have fairly balanced procedures and issue warnings whenever plausible is that there are also some areas where the syllabus is less explicit - varied holds in latin, precedes and follows in standard, etc.

What do others think?

(Oh, one more thing: I think infractions at least at the penalty stage should be announced with the illegal figure or action specifically named - the real benefit of the invigilation system is not in punishing a few cases, but in promoting knowledge of dancing and general respect for the rules of competition - also in closed syllabus divisions many couples may have bits of choreography in common, so there may have been additional instances that were not noticed but can still be corrected before a future competition)

 

[Joe]

It is the responsibility of the competitor to know what steps are permitted in each event. Unless the syllabus to be invigilated has not been stated by the organizer, the competitor has no excuse for performing an unpermitted step. There's no, "Oh my coach said it would be all right if I did that!" if the organizer has clearly elaborated what syllabus is to apply to that event.

If they commit violations in more than one event, they should be docked for each violation.

 

[Chris Stratton]

It is the responsibility of the competitor to know what steps are permitted in each event. Unless the syllabus to be invigilated has not been stated by the organizer, the competitor has no excuse for performing an unpermitted step. There's no, "Oh my coach said it would be all right if I did that!" if the organizer has clearly elaborated what syllabus is to apply to that event.

If the syllabus were perfectly clear, I would agree with you.

But what is an unpermitted step? If it's a gold figure in a silver event that is obvious. But there are things, like alternate hand holds in latin, or combinations of figures in standard (back open promenade to back corte) where opinions of invigilators may differ. It seems like that is why there are warnings in early rounds - instead of something more harsh like disqualification on first offense no matter when it occurs.

 

[sanityhaven]

I would have no problem with strict invigilation so long as the criteria is known. For instance, with how most comps. are run, I have no problems with it in International Style events, but have issues when they try to apply the same standard to the American Style events. The main reason for this is that in International Style there is a single syllabus to work from. If you dance this Style then you should know what you can and cannot pull from. However in American, there seems to be more syllabus's out there than I can count on my hands. You would think with so many out there, the comp. coordinator could choose one or two and say this is syllabi that we're judging from. But what seems to happen most of the time, is that the rules say that you can do anything in your level that is listed on a syllabus somewhere. The problem with this is that there is overlap and disagreement in what figures fall within what level and it becomes unclear for the competitors what them can perform. For instance, in American Foxtrot, I've seen the grapevine listed as bronze and silver in different syllabi. Which is it? I don't know. Common practice would say it's bronze, but that's not to say it actually is a bronze level step and that you couldn't get penalized for it.

 

[tbrennen]

regarding American styles syllabi:

Rule:
"3.2.1.2. Competitors whose figures are determined by the Invigilator (or Chairman of Judges) not to be within the prescribed syllabus and ability level classification..."

Note the words "ability level classification". Those were put in the rulebook precisely because of the plethora of American Style syllabi (USISTD, Fred Astaire, Arthur Murray, etc, etc). It gets even worse because not only do they put similar or identical steps at different levels but they also call many of the same figures by different names. Anyway, in the American dances, one can dance out of category but it must be pretty egregious for a couple to be penalized.

As was pointed out earlier, International is easier to invigilate but there are still some differences between, say, ISTD and DVIDA, as to what step is at what level.

Anyway, it IS the responsibility of the competitor to know the USA DanceSport rules. Of course, that is a bit more difficult for a new Bronze-level competitor to know since they will be new to the scene. At that point, it comes down to the organizer making the point on the entry forms and rules AND to the competitor's teacher(s). While I do regard the above as valid reasons for the couple not to have followed the rules, I don't regard them as valid excuses for not penalizing the couple. Full impartial enforcement of the rules results in the rules being followed more often. I myself am a bit of a hardcase when it comes to the enforcement of the rules, most especially when the competitor knows the rules and breaks them purposefully. (I have seen the last and was appalled but, hopefully, that is in the past and will stay there.)

Chris brings up good points regarding infractions being noticed in a final for the first time and regarding penalization for couples who weren't informed before the second identical infraction. I would agree on the second point but not on the first. It is the reponsibility of the competitor to know the rules. As Chris points out in his last paragraph of his first post on this subject, the infractions should be made public. For two reasons. One, it lets the couple and other fix their choreography and, two, it lets everyone know that the rules need to be followed (to even the playing field).

 

[Chris Stratton]

The problem with placing all responsability on the competitor for knowing the rules is that some details are not covered by any written rule.

For example, is the syllabus the list of figures published on the USISTD website, or is it those figures only when used in the precede-follow combinations listed in the ISTD manual?

 

[wyllo]

Of course, one problem is that competitions do not always enforce the rules. So, there is understandable confusion among competitors regarding the syllabus step restrictions.

I belong to a college dance team and it is very hard for our members to understand why they are restricted to certain steps when the competition goes out of syllabus. But I do think enforcement has been getting better in recent years... and appreciate that most comps will give ample warning to competitors when they do go out of syllabus.

 

[Another Elizabeth]

And then there was the time that I was told by a USISTD fellow that a particular combination of figures was not permitted in gold syllabus. I went and got my book and showed him that it was allowed, and he told me that the USISTD international ballroom syllabus was not the correct reference(!). I later checked with the USISTD examiners, who confirmed that I was right. (We got cut from that round anyway, so it didn't "matter", but it ticked me off.)

 

[smoozer]

If a rule is in place enforce it or throw it out. A few disqualifications and I think it would become less of an issue.

 

[Chris Stratton]

Kind of hard to enforce a rule that isn't fully stated anywhere - in Another Elizabeth's case different officials apparently disagree as to what the official syllabus even IS.

Merciless enforcement is a viable strategy for encouraging compliance - but it only works when everyone can find out exactly what it means to be in compliance.