The scoring for ties should be changed back now that there's no dance off
Veri
Posts: 96,996 Forum Member
✭✭✭
They changed the rule because Tom couldn't be saved from the dance off under the old rule one week.
Now there's no dance off.
AND if the situation can still arrise re being absolutely bottom, it arises, like the original problem, only near the end, when there are few dancers left. So they could solve the problem by not counting the judge's marks when it gets that close to the end.
The change was this:
Imagine three couples are tied in the judges' makrs, and both get 5 points to be added to the points that are based on the viewers' votes.
Under the old system, the next couple below the tie would get 2 points, just as if the three had been given 5, 4, 3 instead of being tied.
In the new system, the next couple below the tie would get 4 points, and the one below then would get 3, and so on.
This means that when there's a tie, the couples at and above the tie are -- in effect -- closer to the bottom than they seem (so they're in more danger than they seem, and so may get fewer votes than if the danger were clearer), while those below the tie don't need as many votes (compared to the old system) to pass them.
I don't know whether the new rule contributed to Jimi's exit, but it certainly can have that sort of effect.
Also, I don't think the SCD producers ever thought through the consequences of the rule change.
So they should change it back.
Now there's no dance off.
AND if the situation can still arrise re being absolutely bottom, it arises, like the original problem, only near the end, when there are few dancers left. So they could solve the problem by not counting the judge's marks when it gets that close to the end.
The change was this:
Imagine three couples are tied in the judges' makrs, and both get 5 points to be added to the points that are based on the viewers' votes.
Under the old system, the next couple below the tie would get 2 points, just as if the three had been given 5, 4, 3 instead of being tied.
In the new system, the next couple below the tie would get 4 points, and the one below then would get 3, and so on.
This means that when there's a tie, the couples at and above the tie are -- in effect -- closer to the bottom than they seem (so they're in more danger than they seem, and so may get fewer votes than if the danger were clearer), while those below the tie don't need as many votes (compared to the old system) to pass them.
I don't know whether the new rule contributed to Jimi's exit, but it certainly can have that sort of effect.
Also, I don't think the SCD producers ever thought through the consequences of the rule change.
So they should change it back.
0
Comments
It should go back to the way it was or preferably some way should be brought in to rank any tied scores, like they did in that Christmas Special.
I was mulling the very same thing over - they needed to change one of the house rules, not both.
i.e :
No Dance Off - 5 5 5 2 1
OR
With Dance Off - 5 5 5 4 3
Either that or the tied couples are ranked by the judges.
(Oops - they need 14 paddles at the start of the series
Problem solved.
Neither it should - if they have a high voters' mark they go through fair and square
The judges should not get a vote period leave it to the masses. What is the object of the exercise is it to allow the PUBLIC's favourite to win or the producers?
I agree.
*with apologies for swearing.
Surely it's only right that those at the bottom of the leaderboard have less chance of going through? They're at the bottom because their dancing was the worst!
I do think that changing the rule back would be sensible to make sure that rankings are more sharply delineated.
That said, I think there might be a couple of problems with what you've said above:
1) How much say is too much for the public? Should those four judges' opinions (for that is what they are, albeit informed opinions) count for more than the opinions of the millions of people who are giving up money, rather than being paid money, to give their opinion? Or is it right that half the decision-making is done by experts in the field (and Alesha
2) Under any system, those at the bottom of the leaderboard have less chance of going through. The fact that the public often gives more votes to those whom the judges have marked down is not really the system's fault - is it?
But the higher ranking given to the lower places because of ties mean they need fewer public votes to be safe. 3 judges points + 6 public vote points = safety. 1 judges point + 6 public vote points = danger.
Where it could get tricky is the double elimination round.
1) I'm not a big fan of the judges. But I think it was fair when the judges had half the say, and the public the other half, but with the public having the final say in the event of a tie. It meant (I think) that whoever won the public vote would always be saved.
I didn't think the dance-off was fair- it gave the judges a second say.
Similarly I do not think it's fair to have this tied system which gives the public so much more weight. I agree, the judges aren't as expert as the producers would like us to believe! But they are giving us a ranking of sorts, based loosely on dance ability. I think that is an important part of the show, and should have equal weight with the public vote.
2) I guess that one is a judgement call. But I was happier with the old system where someone at the bottom had a narrower chance of continuing than they do under the current system. The bottom ones could still get through- John Sergeant is proof of that- but only if they were very popular. I think that is a good balance.
Agree with OP and many others (but not all). Once you do away with the dance-off, you should revert back to the original system, which preserves the judges' power (i.e. so the public don't get undue influence just because there are a few tied scores).
The "new" method was a (very inferior) bodge to cope with a specific situation which could (did) crop up when there's a dance-off.
Not in favour of the idea of X-factor style public-only method - not when there are a lot of couples to choose from. We need to preserve some semblance of this being a dancing competition (i.e. with technique issues), as opposed to a popularity contest.
Absolutely, the specialist "joke" couple will always get plenty of "niche" votes, so the exact nature of the scoring system doesn't really matter.
BUT, it does affect the issue of decent dancers being thrown off well before their time (people like Jimi, for instance).
I think in the event of a tie, the tied couple should each get an average of the points that would have been scored. On Saturday this would have meant the three tied couples getting 4 points each, 2 less than Michelle above and 2 more than Scott below.
I have to say though that ideally I'd like them to stop turning the judges' marks into points like this and use the American system instead where the percentage of the overall judges' marks you receive is added to the percentage of the overall phone votes you receive.
It's not unfair, as the rules apply the same to everyone, and they are not arbitrarily changing. Unfair is what happened to Rachel, when under the rules as written, she would have been the most popular dancer in the 2008 final (and the likely victor), but the rules were changed mid-competition landing her up against an inferior but very popular rival.
It's only an advantage relative to the worst dancers' chances of safety under the old rules.
The new rules give the voters' favourites more chance of safety. This is neither fair nor unfair. It's just what it is. (The outcome of the change may be unintentional, though.) It's like changing the offside law in football. This currently favours the attacking side more than before it was changed, but if consistently applied is fair, as it affects both sides equally.
Bad dancers who are unpopular soon get the chop anyway.
The judges would still comment after each dance, but each judge would rank each couple after they had all danced (they wouldn't know each other's rankings).
There are only 4 judges and a maximum of 14 couples, so it wouldn't take very long. We are probably talking about 10-15 minutes max, even if each judge milks their spot. Or someone like Tess could read out the score for each judge. No paddles needed - just a scoreboard.
It would be interesting to see if the comments from each judge matched the ranking they give (part of the problem now). Maybe then we'd see a better balance and I think it would be quite exciting. The scoreboard could look like this -
Yes, I rather like the idea of averaging (and rounding down, maybe) the tied scores - seems pretty fair. At least the overall range of judges' points is maintained.
I think there'd be all sorts of problems with a switch to the DWTS methods - assuming the judges kept to their policy of scoring over a very limited range. The problem is that the influence of the judges would be minimised, leaving the result extremely dependent on the public vote.
Alas I doubt they will do it this season though and too late to save Jimi.