Calzaghe also suggested that Phil Tufnell should have stayed in the competition last weekend and that producers were "scared" of offending Laila Rouass, who survived the vote despite her sprained ankle.

A BBC spokesman said that any suggestions that the programme was fixed were "ridiculous" and added: "The judges base their opinion on the quality of the dancing."

So the judges"faux" arguments arent pre-arranged as we all know Len "I'm the head judge" Goodman has the final say in any event

Phil got his highest ever mark too. Go figure!

It does happen though. People will think "Oh, he's doing good now, so he won't be needing our votes, let's go save somebody else, eg, Laila. Also voting takes 15 minutes, so you won't get that many calls and differences between the places can be very small, so a few calls can change a lot. Craig was getting through, but once he was in a bloody Blackpool, he lost his supporters and was left to prove something only with his dancing skills.

SCD is a dying dog. This is the worst series ever. They're a bunch of non-entities.

The wooden Calzaghe was an embarrassment anyway.

I see he's still maintaining the faux 'relationship' with the hard-faced Russian dancer.

Odd then that it's still getting very good viewing figures, figures that seem to be a bit up on the same stages last year, and figures that have hit over 9 million last Saturday.

For a dying dog, it still seems to be pretty lively.


I really do think that comment was uncalled for.

I'm don't think that SCD is fixed but I do think the judges play their favourites in the dance off.

We are told that supposedly they judge the dance off based on the dance just performed and don't judge in previous performances or their percieved potential of a couple.

A notable recent example was the Zoe/Ali dance off. IMO Zoe danced better than Ali but Ali was kept in because of her skill and potential not because of her last dance.

BTW I think Christina is lovely and to call her a hard faced Russian is rather rude.

Isn't there another thread about this already?

Exactly and on Saturday Len did an about face and judged them on the dance-off performance.

What I love about this programme is the inconsistances of the judging.

Why do you never see Len Goodman and Mr Hodges the air raid warden in Dad's Army at the same time?

Calzaghe would claim scd is fixed because he was eliminated in a relatively early round. Like Craig Kelly, he was totally deluded and couldn't accept that - as a dancer - he was completely useless.

Last Saturday it was virtually obvious that Laila would get the sympathy vote and not be in bottom 2.

Phil v Ricky G? Well, I was surprised Phil was eliminated by the judges, but Katya admitted on ITT that they made mistakes that were not seen on camera, so we (watching on tv) didn't see what the judges saw, and both judges who chose Craig to remain said they had to choose the 'cleanest' performance - ie the one without mistakes.

Whatever the judges can't really win, can they? They are supposed to judge the dance-off on that dance only, not on prior performances, but when they do just that, they are still criticised.

I agree kaycee, although I wish the judges would be more consistent over the 'rules' in the dance off.

You can't tell the judges weren't basing their decision on the dance just performed just because your opinion of the dance is different.

Still, you're right that the judges are inconsistent, because sometimes they even state reasons that aren't about the dance-off dance. (I don't remember whether they did re Ali vs Zoe.)

Yet at other times, judges act like they were virtually forced to send someone home because of the dance-off dance alone.


If they're criticised for being inconsistent, that seems fair.

If they saved someone else because they're the best dancer overall or have the most potential, why does everything like that go out the window when it's Ricky G vs Phil?

How does X Factor deal with this sort of problem, btw?

...

Anyway, re Joe's claim, did he say why the producers would be scared of offending Laila, or what that has to do with her avoiding the dance off? (Anyone?)

The judges did their part by giving her the lowest marks. So where's the "fix" come in?

They're not very consistent about their reasons for the marks they give either.

Which, unfortunately, helps fuel speculation that they decided their marks in advance, have favourites and "pets", and so on.

Still, perhaps all they need to change is to stop making it sound like they're forced to give this or that mark (or make a particular dance-off decision) and take responsibility for their opinions instead.

Link to D Spy article about the Mail story: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/strictly...-is-a-fix.html


If he was quoted correctly, his thinking seems a bit muddled, because he goes from "we had the highest votes every week" to "Then all of a sudden we lost out in the judges' vote."

He understands that those are two completely different "votes", right?

And that it's viewers abandoning him that put his fate in the judges' hands?

what a nerve...This guy should have left week 1..

It was in regard to the P-word incident, although to be fair(ish) to Joe it just says he is referring to the incident and there is not actual direct quote, so not sure about the veracity of that claim.

Marking is an art. You won't capture all the reasons in a soundbite to Brucie or Tess and the judges can't reach the their consensus view by talking it through so its pretty inevitable judges will say different things.

How you weigh the factors depends how weighty they are. Phil had a better record than Ricky G but not to the extent that he was in a different class, both had some momentum, its not momentum that will take anyone far though. Phil made the mistakes in the dance off, Ricky G showed at least the same level of ability there and had momentum and consistency going for him that night - so a 2-2 split in the judges going to Ricky G would make sense.

Change it a bit and have one dancer who can do lots of things better than another , does those things better in the dance off, has a harder routine but has a temporary injury - put them up against someone else good, with a slightly less strong record and not quite as exceptional abilities who is doing something less difficult and makes a few fewer mistakes. Both make errors in the dance off. Its perfectly possible to weigh that for the first dancer. Both are arguably marked on wider factors or the dance off because you can quite easily say that something in the dance of demonstrated how exceptional or not someone is - even when other things are going wrong.

Both decisions are questionable but thats why you have judges to decide and why you dont rely on one judge whether its university finals marks or who goes home on SCD.

X factor does what Simon wants to.

I can't see any logic to the claim. How has Laila got the power to make the BBC do anything - is she going to win to keep her quiet? The easier explanation is a sympathy vote and a strong vote for Anton which is consistent with earlier voting where those two have avoided the bottom 2. The interesting question is what happened to Phil's personality vote and who has picked up Jo, Phil and Joe's vote? Chris or Nat or Jade or the top 2?

I did get the impression that he wasn't exactly the brightest spanner in the toolbox. However, I'm slightly confused as to why he's come out with all this now.

As you can gather, I'm no longer a fan - although I speak as somebody who watched it from Series 1, Episode 1 up until the beginning of this year's series.

This thread started life in another sub-forum; I generally elect not to post in this section any more because I understand this is a fan forum.

They are criticised because they say one thing and do another when it suits them. This week they claim they have to judge on the basis of who makes the fewest errors in the dance off so Phil goes; two weeks ago Ali messed up in the dance off but Zoe went, presumably on the basis that Ali, when uninjured is the better dancer, although she actually made far more mistakes in the routine. In my eyes the judged can win as long as they are honest about their criteria. They are not. The worst eg was Penny Lancaster who danced a poorer routine with more mistakes and had less potential than Gaby Logan. But her husband was the guest on the following week. So, utterly dishonestly, she went through. In that sense, the show is regularly 'fixed'.

Which part of the show does Joe claimed is fixed? The judge's decision or the public vote?

Because he wasn't very clear.

Either way, how can he claim he should still be in the show? The Beeb would not risk another voting scandal so it seems unlikely that the public vote was fixed and why would the judges have saved Joe when he was an abysmal dancer?

Just sounds like sour grapes to me.

And I don't understand his point about the judges not wanting to offend Laila. It's not as if they've been singing her priases week after week. They've been quite harsh with her.

On this point he is seemingly blaming the shows producers rather than the judges. That they are only allowing her to be kept in due to the racism scandal.

True Veri.
The judges did their part. I knew straight away that Laila would get through. I was with 7 friends when she was on her dance and everyone one of them said they were going to vote to keep her in after she couldn't complete her dance. Joe is talking rubbish.

Forgive me, I don't quite follow the relevance of that ......

Would you agree that the viewing figures (as referenced in various DS reports, and in the Ratings thread in the Television forum) would suggest that SCD is not at all a dying dog?

And whether or not you wish to see this as a "fan forum", and regardless as to where this thread started, to pass a comment along the lines of

I see he's still maintaining the faux 'relationship' with the hard-faced Russian dancer.

is unwarranted (and the fact that you were a regular watcher up until the start of this series does not excuse that IMO).

Unless you have seen evidence that their relationship is fake (land eaving aside your debatable opinion of Kristina's looks of course).

Reading between the lines, this is my take on it:

Joe is probably saying 'fix' because he's now aware of the lengths to which the production team go to spin story lines and create interest on perception rather than reality. He's probably talking about viewers being manipulated into voting a certain way in this way, rather than any actual fraud or cheating.

The Daily Mail, hating the BBC as it undoubtedly does, and loving a manufactured controversy at least as much as the Strictly production team, has spun and micro-quoted snippets of what he said to give it negativity and a sense of overall suspicion and whiffiness.

Plus ca change!

Absolutely spot-on, gorlagon. And I bet Calzaghe and his agent are foaming at the mouth now about how they've woven his quotes into a knocking story.

I can't imagine Kristina is too chuffed either. As a pro you don't want to be mentioned alongside an ex-partner who's involved (even unwittingly) ina feud with the BBC.