Part III 29/11/2016

We hope that the three-part editorial by Reinhard Egli, a photographer (picture on the left), publisher and - as he emphasises - a "former" dancer who stopped 15 years ago, has triggered some reflection on the part of the readers.

The members of the Competition Manipulation Task Force invites others to send their thoughts on the matter to [email protected]. Other articles are scheduled to get published over the coming weeks.

PART III

Scratch Results

Another method would be to eliminate results that deviate excessively from the average. In the preliminary rounds, the results with the highest number of marks and those with the lowest number of marks would be deleted. Thus only the moderate results would be considered. In the new judging system already, the highest and the lowest score awarded count less towards the total component score the more they deviate from the median.

Until now organisers have the possibility to determine at least some of the adjudicators on the panels of their ranking competitions themselves. Their selection is often made from a circle of their friends or from the list of adjudicators in the neighboring countries in order to keep travel costs low.

By Random Draw

Assigning adjudicators by random draw was a topic discussed a few years back. This could certainly prevent some of the undesirable influences from taking hold. The increased costs due to travel over greater distance could be settled from a central travel expense compensation pool. The organisers could thus budget with fixed costs.

Boycot vs. Dialogue

Most couples look favourably upon the installation of the task force. They appreciate the overall effort and contribute to the task force’s work by sharing their experiences with the members. But at the German Open Championships, some couples boycotted the start in determined competitions over personal sensibilities and as an expression of their general discontent.

Boycotts, too, were a steady companion throughout the stormy history of our sport. The British didn’t dance in Germany – and the Germans kept away from England – because they both considered to be “at a disadvantage” in the respective host country.

However, without anybody communicating the official reasons for such a boycott, there is no input to the process that could bring about change, no expression of opposing views and differing interests.

The dialogues continue as secretive and confidential as ever, the mere rumblings of discontent. And in strong contrast to an open discussion that addresses the problems and seeks to solve them.

The world of dance is made up of rather “egocentric personalities with their sensitivities heightened to extreme levels.” After all, some of these traits were precisely what many them so successful as dancers.

Many innovations – be it technique books or new rules – led nearly to “religious” wars. Maybe Alex Moore and Wally Laird could tell us more about that. After years of quarreling the parties find nevertheless back to common ground and acknowledge retroactively the importance of a milestone that was passed.

Hopefully the need for dialogue and constructive cooperation towards a common goal will be recognised earlier this time. Not that we have to experience the kind of dismantling of our sport and governing body that FIFA is currently going through.