I've found some people voting for the bottom few:

http://www.rugbynetwork.net/boards/r...m?107,11964265

Now, getting home p*ssed from the rugby, the Henson/anti-Henson vote kicks in and they don't know enough about voting to cover the middle board too.

It's 'RUGBY-VOTING WARS'! FIGGGHHHHTTTT!

I think this came up last week some time, from the comments it appears some of the judges could be sitting in on rehearsals, therefore possibly forming an opinion ahead of time.

Yes we cannot go back or else Ofcom will be back on the case.....

Ok not arguing but why should the judges not see rehearsals and the live show? They could make allowances for an improvement from the former to the latter?

All the Beeb would need to do in such circumstances would be to highlight if someone couldn't be saved from the DO or bottom spot etc. and then tell people to vote accordingly. Whether that would pack the viewers in so much is anyone's guess.

It wasn't the fact that Tom couldn't be saved that would have alarmed Ofcom but that Tess urged people to vote for the impossible.

I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, there's always the possibility that they'll miss a good move in the live show and they can get a better idea of how technically difficult the dance is, and therefore be able to set score range depending on actual live performance. Like in gymnastics.

As long as the decision they make is not set in stone.

Yep that is a very good point

You are right regandron. If there is a tie between two for a gold medal, no silver medal is awarded. The next highest ranker gets a bronze.

Are we really sure that Scott / Ann got four / three rather than two / one ?

It might have satisfied Ofcom, but there would have been outrage from the viewers if they had been told not to vote for Tom as he was destined to be in the dance-off, and it would have made the show look ridiculous.

It's only if the judges confer in advance of the live performance about the rehearsals and how many points they will be awarding. This would destroy their credibility and the show. We have to trust that they're not doing this.

Still think the easiest way to resolve it is to re-score in the event of a tie, so that the judge board retains range.

I think it was a combination of things - the fact the viewers are urged 'to vote for their favourite', that the concept of the show/public vote is that they can save their favourite and the fact that that it was strongly suspected that if Tom had found himself in the bottom 2 he was a gonner - who he was up against was academic.

The judges have ample time to make opinions through the week - heck, Craig even gets to comment on it on a Friday on ITT

Its simple how it can happen, Im given a rough idea what might off happened, asuming Jimi and Flavia got the least votes.

Kara - 10
Matt - 9
Pamela - 8
Jimi - 7
Michele - 6
Patsey - 5
Gavin - 5
Felicty - 5
Scott - 4
Ann - 3

Jimi - 7 + 1 = 8
Michele - 6 + 2 = 8 (Viewers votes count)
Felicity 5 + 3 - 8 (Viewers Votes)
Patsey - 5 + 4 = 9
Gavin - 5 + 5 = 10
Pamela - 8 + 6 = 14
Ann - 3 + 7 = 10
Kara - 10 + 8 = 18
Scott - 4 + 9 = 13
Matt - 9 + 10 = 19

Leatherface, you have worked it out! The actual votes might have been a bit different but the highlighted part is crucial. Now if they had put Scott and Ann's votes as two and one would that have made a difference? We will never know.

All we do know is that it is a shambles and a farce.

I wondered about this and whether people who got screwed over in past rigged voting systems were getting their own back.

Well done - a clear and simple explanation.

On these figures which obviously are only guesstimates having Ann on 1 point and Scott on 2 points the result would still have been the same as Jimi, Michelle, Felicity, Patsy and Gavins scores would have stayed the same Scott would be on 2 + 9 = 11 and Ann 1 + 7 = 8 and both would have been safe and jimi still gone.

It's even possible that 5 people were tied after the public vote

Jimi- 7 + 1 = 8
Michelle- 6 + 2 = 8
Felicity or Patsy or Gavin- 5 + 3 = 8
Scott - 4 + 4 = 8
Ann- 3 + 5 = 8

It would then be irrelevent in which order the rest received their points as they would have more than 8, and as public votes count for more in the event of a tie, Jimi and Michelle would be bottom 2 with Jimi going

Hope this helps.... and it is just theory... who knows how the public actually voted

In your opinion................

Perhaps. It looked silly enough as it was, and in my view, sticking to the rules that were inforce at the start of the competition is better than re-writing them half way through. Mind you, I'm not worried about adverse media coverage or viewing figures, so I can see why the Beeb did what it did.

Its not unheard of in SCD particularly in the later stages we have had two finals where the leaderboard has been reversed by the public

Both Zoe Ball and Lisa Snowdon were top with the judges before the public vote and both went out in 3rd place as the public leaderboard reversed the judges.

All a result like this week's tells you is that if you want to keep seeing a celeb on the show - YOU NEED TO VOTE FOR THEM. That's what is happening with the ones you don't rate - their supporters are prepared to pick up their phones and vote them through.

If you don't vote - you have no right to whinge and moan about the results delivered by those who can be bothered to put their money where their mouths are!

How many of those weeping wailing and gnashing their teeth at Jimi's departure actually voted for him???

I is the voting system that is a shambles and a farce. Not the programme itself (as it used to be). Not sure about this year though. The people I am sorry for are those celebrities who work so hard in perfecting a dance they have never done before and still have to contend with the AW bandwagon!

It did look silly, but it would have looked a lot worse if the public had been denied their say. The rules are only there as a means to give the judges and the public an equal say in the decision-making process (roughly - it can never be perfectly 50-50). I think that changing the rules to allow the public their say was far more important than sticking to them rigidly, which would have gone against the reason the rules are there in the first place.

Going along with that theory, and seeing the possible scores laid out like that, it seems to me that it would be fairer for the better dancers if the judges' vote counts more. That would of course meant that Jimi was ultra-safe even though he was tied at the bottom, and Anne would have gone.

Then again it might be the case that people thought jimi was safe? AND another point being, they dont really give you much time to vote, what is it like 2 hours to vote? Not much time really, it might be a different story if they actually did the sunday show live, and closed the lines during that show as well like the x factor.