I heard this, didn't see it as i was busy doing something else, but did James challenge Craig in an undermining way, kinda similar to the way another dancer likes to do to another one of the judges shall we say?

Or was it just pointing out that he got it wrong so they wouldn't be marked down?

Either way, the close up's on James's face in the last few weeks at various points, indicate to me that he's bursting to challenge the judges much more, and saturday was the first of it.

Is he looking to get rebellious a bit?

No, James wasn't undermining Craig. He was correcting his misconception about the New Yorker step. Craig acknowledged James' remarks. It was all amicable.

I love James and I thought that Craig took the correction with good grace (as should be if you are wrong).

It's nothing to do with wanting to be more rebellious, Craig was genuinely wrong, and because James actually cares about the dancing, he wanted to make sure the incorrect description of technique didn't stand. I thought it was great that he did it

I wish the pros would do that more often frankly. I don't think being respectful extends to accepting completely invalid criticism and not venturing to disagree.

I was quite surprised that Craig didn't know about the leg being straight/bent.....can't remember which it's supposed to be.....whilst doing the New Yorker!

The bent leg only applies to the syncopated New Yorks, the leg is straightened in the standard new yorks.
However I was so glad that James pointed out that Craig was wrong. I think the pro dancers have a right to point out to the judges if they give wrong criticism because they haven't learnt the correct technique themselves.

I must confess I enjoyed James' interjection. I wouldn't know a New Yorker from a Gay Gordon, and I tend to take Craig's technical pronouncements on trust. I know dancers have been criticised in the past for not having straight legs in the cha-cha-cha (even Alesha got criticised for that, as I recall), so it's a useful bit of information to know that it's appropriate sometimes (and eventually I'll find out what a syncopated New Yorker is - thank you, Ballroom-B).

James wasn't rude and didn't challenge Craig on a matter of opinion, just a technical issue. Fair enough, which is why Craig accepted it as such. Amicable and sensible.

What a great show this is - dance, entertainment AND education all in one!

New yorks - couple step through the middle of each other to end up side by side holding hands in the middle and the other held out/upwards (beat 2). They then step back (beat 3) dance side-close-side (the cha cha cha step) (beats 4 + 1) to step through the middle the other way to repeat (I hope that makes some kind of sense )
Syncopated new yorks step timing is different and misses out the cha cha cha step so is danced 2 + 3, 4 + 1 it looks and feels faster.
I hope I've explained that okay. I'm having alarm bells in my head that I've managed to explain an entirely different step instead of the syncopated new yorks, which would be very embarrassing

I think I get you BB, syncopated is when the chasse is missed out, it is just the couple stepping forward, replace, side ('stepping through the middle') repeatedly, on 2 + 3, 4 + 1?

Yes. Then I had a horrible thought that I was describing cuban rocks. I will retrieve the technique book in a minute!

Having just learnt the difference technique-wise a couple of days ago, that makes perfect sense to me, you're definitely describing the right step!

Looking at the video, are the syncopated New Yorkers the bit at 1.10-1.12 ish? Bit confused but I think I know what you guys mean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzRDmJDB09I

Amazing how many do not take things with good grace when they are wrong though.... Craig was impeccable in his climbdown.

Sure if Craig was wrong then thats quite bad actually. But I still get the feeling a general feeling that the dancers think they are better than the judges and want to speak out more. They probably are better, but still they have to accept their roles and keep it harmonious.

Its a bit like a boxing trainer and his fighter. The fighter could easily "deal" with the trainer but that doesn't mean the trainer doesn't know wheat he's talking about and can point out to the fighter what they need to do generally and to win etc.

I think James did the right thing - and Craig did concede