Ceroc-ker,

Under your proposed system in last year's semi-final fiasco, Tom would have had 1 point from the judges (as he was third) and other pair 2.5 each. After the phone vote, Tom would have had 4 points and one of the others 4.5, so Tom would still have been doomed to the Dance Off.

If the judges marked out of 100, then the chances of a tie would be pretty much negligible (although the judges' desk would be somewhat weighted down with paddles ) and the situation would not arise.

Doh!

Do you realise you have to have 10 characters in a message?

I blame the education system - I've only got a Maths degree

Unfortunately I suspect the British public can't handle fractional numbers.


Yes. Craig's basically the decider in a way. All this faffing around trying to impress Len is pointless - at most you'll get a couple of extra points from him.

Similar arguments apply for Bruno and Alesha. Even if you do poorly, you're likely to get some marks from them.

So tactically, it's far better to impress Craig - you could get up to 5 points difference in his scores.

Given that there seems to be a bit more experimentation in the dances this year, I wonder if some of the pros have cottoned-on to this fact, and are working more at "performance"?

EXAMPLE

A tie could be broken this was

Couple A gets 32 points (8+8+8+8)

Couple B gets 32 points (7+9+8+8)

Couple B should finish higher on board because they received a higher score from one judge (9).

It would not work in all cases but would break some of the log jams.

Or:-

A tie could be broken this was

Couple A gets 32 points (8+8+8+8)

Couple B gets 32 points (7+9+8+8)

Couple B should finish lower on board because they received a lower score from one judge (7).

It would not work in all cases but would break some of the log jams.

Well, the old system had that. Even the couples at the top could be in the dance-off if the public vote reversed the leaderboard.

eg Series 4, week 9
Judges:
1st - Emma Bunton
2nd - Louisa Lytton
3rd - Carol Smillie
4th - Mark Ramprakash
5th - Matt Dawson

Public:
1st - Matt Dawson
2nd - Mark Ramprakash
3rd - Louise Lytton
4th - Carol Smillie
5th - Emma Bunton

Emma and Carol were in the bottom two after the public vote. (I've never forgiven the public for that result. Matt Dawson should have been a gonner.)

The only problem was the Tom semi-final scenario. If they simply had a back-up to ensure there were always four couples at that stage, even if someone dropped out, then that would be solved. Unfortunately they've gone with this new scoring system, possibly without thinking of the side-effects.

Muinimula,

The problem with the old system (ie last year) wasn't about having a number of people in any particular round, it was that in the semi-final, Tom could not avoid the DO after the judges' vote. This was compounded by the fact that Tess then encouraged the punters to phone to save their favourites, when Tom's fans were unable to do this. The BBC would thus have faced all manner of demands for refunds, claims of unfairness etc, as the voters by and large don't give a stuff about dancing, they just want to see their faves in the next week.

A good way of breaking a tie IMO would be by order danced e.g. if a couple dancing first ties with a couple dancing last, the earlier dance is placed above the later...on the basis that later dances may have an advantage in the televote and even with the judges' scores.

You're right, I guess the same situation could still occur with a four-couple semi-final (three couples tied, one couple behind). The problem was exacerbated by there being only three couples, which the dance-off situation wasn't really designed for.

Structurally, the public vote becomes more and more important as the show goes on.

But what this system does is to introduce more uncertainty - and more power to the public - at an earlier stage.

It may balance out later - but it's suffering the law of unintended consequences now.

That said, if the judges apart from Craig actually showed some independence, and varied their scores, there'd be less ties.

Not quite true, sadly

There is actually a HUGE HUGE flaw with the new system... when it gets to 4 couples left, the person who tops the public vote can still be doomed to the dance-off (which is direct contradiction to the BBC's claims that "the public always have the power to save or condemn any couple to the dance off"

Surely someone on here has spotted this?

For example:

Judges marks

Ricky W - 4pts
Ali - 3pts
Chris - 2pts
Tuffers - 1pt

Public vote

Tuffers - 4pts
Ali B - 3pts
Ricky W - 2pts
Chris - 1pt

Totals

Ricky W - 6pts
Ali B - 6pts
Tuffers - 5pts
Chris - 3pts


Tuffers wins the public vote but is in the dance-off with Chris! (ignore the names, they're just examples)

Yet we're told all along to "vote to SAVE our favourite" when it's actually just as pointless as previous years (ie Tom, Austin, Gethin, etc)

Couldn't they have come up with better than this???

I believe this can happen actually at any time with any number of contestants....although it's unlikely to before the quarter-final, say, because in earlier rounds there are so many other possible permutations.

I think it's one of the innate problems with the dance-off....but the distinction I'm sure the BBC would draw is that, taking your example, Tufnell would not be automatically in the dance-off...in contrast to the Chambers incident. Tufnell voters can save him...albeit they're depending on other voters to vote a particular way.

That's not to suggest, however, that I like it...at all. One of the best features of the original pre-dance-off system was that the couple who won the televote could never be eliminated.

In what way?

All you've shown is that the public vote cannot automatically save the lowest-scorer. Which is true, but it doesn't mean that my statement was incorrect, as I never said otherwise.

All I said was that the new scoring system, in combination with the 3 Sheep Judges, means there's less gap between top and bottom scorers. Which means that the public vote - always provide maximum gap - is disproportionately effective, from an early point onwards.

For example, last week the popularity points counted for twice as much as the actual judge scoring.

As the system and judging is now set up, basically, if you're popular, and if Craig likes you, then you're guaranteed a slot at least for the quarter-finals.

Midflight, I've never seen this quote.

The line they were giving when the scoring system was introduced in August was that it was no longer possible for any couple to be immune from the dance off. That is what they have achieved. So the BBC don't see it as a flaw.

What appears to be misunderstood is what the term "public" means. As a fan of a particular couple, the tendency is to assume that if that couple is popular in the phone vote, then they should be saved. The BBC's interpretation is that it the public as a whole, so as long as no-one is guaranteed to be safe or guaranteed to be in the DO then they're happy. In my experience of the public, the other so and sos don't always vote how they should, so I don't necessarily get the result I want.

I think the issue is whether its impossible to vote to save for Tuffers in some scenarios or whether its impossible for him to avoid the bottom two in the vote at all. In your scenario its the first but its still possible for him to be saved at the start of the vote.

Last year it was impossible for Tom to escape the SF dance off as one girl was bound to get 5 points to his maximum of 4. There were no scenarios that let him escape.

In your example it would have been pointless voting for Tuffers .......but (stick with me) its only pointless after the votes are made and counted. Change the outcome and things can all change. If the public vote had Ali last she would be in the dance off. If Ricky W was last he could be. In that case all the votes to make Tuffers first would be important in getting him out of the dance off.

Bottom line is you are voting to save them in some but not all possible outcomes of the public vote - but until you have the vote all is possible and if you don't vote Tuffers doesn't escape even if he could have.