Crossfire from Inverted Lines is certainly a border-line usage of crossfire. Yes, I believe it would end in the above mentioned formations, however I think using it from this position violates the gestalt of the call (in the same manner as calling Motivate from a Starting Double Pass Thru). I don't particularly care for instances of calls that bring everyone to the same spot (e.g., I hate it when callers call Unwrap the Diamond from Facing Diamonds).

According to the callerlab definition, from Out-Facing Lines, Crossfire ends in a R-H 1/4 Tag. I disagree, and have written a lengthly paper about this problem. When I call Crossfire from Out-Facing Lines, I expect it to end in a Starting Double Pass Thru formation.

Our crossfire definition: http://www.ceder.net/def/crossfire.php

Also, be sure to see our lengthy discussion on crossfire problems at http://www.ceder.net/def/crossfire_controversy.php

It is my hope that Callerlab will eventually change the definition of Crossfire so that from Out-Facing Lines, it ends in a Starting Double Pass Thru formation. I suggest that if you call it from Out-Facing Lines, you

1. tell the dancers about the controversy;
2. tell them that you prefer a Starting Double Pass Thru formation;
3. and perhaps, always call a call such as Centers Swing Thru that can be done from either ending formation.

The following was taken from an Email message sent by Kip Garvey to the SD-Callers list many years ago, explaining the history of the crossfire definition:

> Because of continued controversy, it is strongly recommended
> never to call Crossfire from Lines Back-to-Back.
>
> Does anyone really need CALLERLAB to tell them this?

Those who speak to the subject (Crossfire) in this forum view it with
seemingly common clarity. What I find particularly interesting is the way
these definitional anomalies evolve. Though my recollection suffers a bit,
I recall the incident Clark references: The defining of Crossfire to
result in a 1/4 tag when done from lines of 4 facing out.

Like many other things decided at CALLERLAB, this issue was based on a
then-current workshop application of the call that many traveling callers
were using at the time. The discussion and debate was not necessarily
based on technical issues of the call, but rather, and more so, on the
then current application of the call by callers of some particular
stature. Now, who's more likely to convince the majority, the popular,
name brand caller? Or the lesser known (perhaps) but more technically
correct caller who's viewpoint and presentation is technical and is based
on technical terms unfamiliar to the large majority of voters (like, "4
person versus 8 person call")? And let's face it, there continues to be a
level of distrust, though much less conspicuous today than in the late
'70's, among the non-technical crowd toward those whose interests are more
technically inclined.

This particular peculiarity of the CALLERLAB organization has existed from
day one: The more popular callers in the organization are not necessarily
(and often not entirely) the more technically knowledgeable. Yet, their
input in the decision making process is often given undue weight based
mostly on popularity.

This is why I caution callers from viewing everything that is published by
CALLERLAB as being the final and incontrovertible last word, especially
our European friends many of whom believe the CALLERLAB definitions are
the bible. We need a central organization like CALLERLAB, among other
reasons, to be a forum where we can fine tune such items as the definition
of Crossfire. But we must also recognize that the process is compendious,
an amalgamation of strongly felt opinions, that influence the output
sometimes in a negative way. I love the process. I don't see any other
viable alternative, other than appointing some group or individual with
ultimate imprimatur powers, which simply will never work in this industry.
Hell, it barely works for the Catholic church!

There is much hope. Many of us, Clark especially, work diligently to bring
these issues before the general members so progress in call definition
refinement continues with regularity. There has been much resistance to
change in the CALLERLAB organization, but less so today than in the past.
Most of the problems, I feel, are structural, organizational, and
procedural. We have worked in the last few years to correct this within
CALLERLAB. I am optimistic about the subtle, unpublished changes going on
inside the organization and urge you all to continue to pour on the
"juice" while we work to make CALLERLAB an organization we all can be proud
of.

Hate to end this with a preposition. Hope the Harvard guys don't mind.

Kip Garvey
Visit at http://www.kipgarvey.com for club & festival info
CALLERLAB member, BMI-ASCAP Licensed
====