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.

Totally agree. The rule was brought in because of the dance off and Tom's situation (although the problem came up in a Christmas Special aswell) and as there is no dance off this doesn't apply now.

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.

Never thought I'd see the day but I agree with you.
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

I'm in agreement too

Either that or the tied couples are ranked by the judges.

Plus - the idea that couples are marked at the end so Judges HAVE to decide who danced best/worst each show using all 10 paddles once only.

(Oops - they need 14 paddles at the start of the series - cue Blue Peter and some sticky-backed plastic )

They should mark after they have all danced and when it's down to four they shouldn't mark at all.

Problem solved.

I don't know what percentage of public vote you would need to escape with being 1 on the judges vote, but someone like AW who has received 1 must be getting a high percentage to escape the past 6 weeks. So fiddling about with the tied vote won't make any difference to such persons.

Neither it should - if they have a high voters' mark they go through fair and square

They have to otherwise how could you save your favourite? The judges could score everybody equal except one. If they were all different scores then out of say ten people there would be 9 chances to beat any individual.
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.

Why do the judges have to give a score anyway? Why not just comment, and leave it to viewers' votes? I know it's a bit X Factor*, but why not bring back the two couples with the lowest audience vote for a dance-off, and let the judges decide.



*with apologies for swearing.

The reason the tied voting system came in was because of the dance off. Under the 3-3-1 ranking, Tom couldn't have avoided the dance-off. Without the dance-off, he could have got through to the final if he won the public vote. So Veri is right- we no longer need the new system. Public favourites get through more often than not. Under the new system, the public gets too much say.

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?

I agree with the OP now the dance off as gone they should revert to the old leaderboard numbers.......it was only ever needed to stop someone not being able to avoid the dance off even if they got the highest public vote.. When we get to the last 4 or 5 then the judges marks should also have no sway it should be public vote only.

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.

(Can't quote your full post on my iPhone, sorry)

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.

Another "scoring" thread (love it!).

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.

Agree 100% Veri - the present system gives a blatantly unfair advantage to the worst dancers.

Just had a thought..........although I do think they should revert to the original leaderboard points system......that system was in place when John and Kristina were in the competition and it never sucessfully put them into the bottom 2 (although it might have done had he stayed it)

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).

Sorry, but I have to disagree (someone has to! ). If we had the original scoring system in place last Saturday then each of the three couples who scored 29 would have received 5 points, and then Scott with only one mark less on 28 would have received 3 points fewer with 2 points. I don't believe that can be considered fair.

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.

Some of us were discussing the scoring on the ITT thread this week and dome and I thought an adapted Eurovision scoring system would be a good idea.

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.

Couldn't agree more with the OP!