In the Series 6 semi final, instead of causing that 'fix' scandal why didn't they just ditch the dance-off. It would have avoided the whole stir-up!! Gee!!!

Have you been thinking about this for 4 years?

Because they didnt think it all through thats why.....they didnt understand their own voting system when they introduced the dance off in series 5, in that when the number of couples gets lower that the person with the highest public vote can sometimes not avoid the chop because they cant avoid the dance off. ....which means they were taking our money wrongly. Tom was let off the hook because the judges tied Rachel and Lisa but if they hadnt the BBC would have done nothing and then Tom could have been in the dance off anyway despite topping the vote as he would have needed Rachel and Lisa to be on the leaderboard in a particular order to be safe.......we will never know but there is a good chance that exactly the same thing happened to Gethin in series 5....even if he had got the highest public vote in semi final week he needed Matt to beat Alesha in the public vote to avoid the dance off......THIS is why the dance off should never have been introduced and should never return.

Exactly. Should have been dropped in series 5 as well. TPTB quite happily ditched it for Chris after all! I too hope it never returns!!

Id have just ditched Tom Chambers anyway - then we would have been spared the worst winner in Strictly history.

Don't be silly!

Actually in all serious I believe he's one of the better winners, if you've seen him in Top Hat you'll see he's brilliant. He's obviously kept dancing and used what he's learnt to further his career. Much better than those who win and then never dance again.

And yes the dance off when down to the final three was ridiculous!! I'm a bit more cynical than some and am convinced that the judges were actively using it to ensure they got to pick the winner.

That's too previous.
There are many contenders for the title.

In theory the Dance off was a good idea.....as I`am sure you will recall it was introduced to help save a good or excellent celeb being voted off in favour of a very poor celeb....as happened in series 4 when DJ Spooney was given the boot by the public....But as has already been mentioned the BBC did`t think through all the possible permutations of the voting system.

Likewise the BBC did`t learn from Jimmy Tarbuck`s withdrawal from series 4 which eventually left ony 2 finalists.....Instead of having an extra celeb the following year to prevent a recurrence of a two man/woman final they did nothing....and what happened...Kelly Brook had to withdraw and we were left with only 2 finalists...again!!!.....and amazingly no extra celeb the following year either....John Sergeant withdrew....but the BBC vote cock up as discussed above ensured we had 3 celebs in the final...but it could very easily have been yet another 2 man/woman final.....series 7...Jade withdrew....and we had yet another 2 man/woman final....Eventually after 8 series someone at the BBC had a bright idea and hired an extra celeb as a back up to cover themselves if a contestant had to withdraw.....8 fookin years it took them to work that one out.

Another idea is the jdges could have just sparated Rachel and Lisa, giving one 3 points and one 2 points.

Yes they could but that could still have ment Tom was in the dance off even though he got the highest public vote (a fact we know because it was announced at the beginning of the final) it would (as possibly in Gethins case) have meant that it was entirely down to where Rachel and Lisa were on the board and public vote....he would definately have been eliminated as he wasnt liked by the judges as much as Lisa or Rachel. When we are down to 3 couples it just isnt right that the person with the highest public vote isnt safe.

I think they introduced the dance-off to rack up the tension and copy X Factor. But they'd forgotten that X Factor judges don't assign marks, just give comments. So the end result was to skew eliminations in favour of the judges rather than the public. Any fool can see this is not a recipe for success when your show depends on the public seeing the people they like most for more weeks.

Unless the panel make up is changed the Dance off was unfair as Len could vote for his favourite twice adding in a 5th judge would possibly sort that out. But then the public feel cheated if their favourite goes out. If the audience voting was more transparent it might work.

Why should the public vote trump the judges anyway? The reason why Lisa and Rachel should have got through is that they danced the better on the night. Then we have the first round of the final where he nearly ended up on his arse, yet the public voted him through. The equivalent of jury nullification. The program was probably saved by the brilliant showdance, because he would probably have won even if he had visibly cocked it up.

The dance -off was a way of prioritising quality of dancing above everything else.

In the event of a "tie" the public vote should trump the judges' vote because Strictly is prime time Saturday night entertainment TV. It is not a specialist dance programme involving (presumably knowledgeable) participation from its (minority) dance-interested audience. If it was the latter, it would be broadcast on BBC2 or BBC4, the minority channels. The entire point of Strictly is to involve and entertain the public. Dance is the vehicle by which the programme achieves this aim; not the aim itself.


I completely disagree. The dance-off was introduced a time when Strictly was losing ground to the X Factor. It was an attempt at replicating the X Factor "tension". But, as I say, it didn't work because it weighted the decision 2:1 in favour of the judges, a complete and utter no-no in a TV show of this type.

I guess it depends on what entertains you. I don't think it would make a difference to the vast majority of the viewers. After all, what proportion of the total audience votes regularly anyway?.None of those I know who watch the program who don't post on places like this seem to share the view that the audience vote should control over the judges.


I was speaking of the effect of the Dance off, not its alleged aim. And in fact you are talking rubbish. the Judges are prisoners of who the public vote for. That is what gave us John Sergeant -where they had to sit by helplessly while a very good dancer like Cheryl Lunghi forced into a dance-off which she lost - and Chris Hollins. The dance off at least gave quality of dancing a slightly larger vote.

Indeed. It was also a tie-in with the brand new sunday show, as it was thought the show needed to be longer to justify its existence.

This was all Sam Donnelly's doing when she took over as exec producer in series 5. Every change introduced between then and series 7 was decided or OK'ed by her, apart from the (ridiculous) series 7 scheduling which was Jay Hunt/George Dixon's idea.


I know Moira Ross is not popular on this forum, but she introduced the double elimination to avoid a 2 person final, sensibly leaving it as late as possible (semifinal) as people can pull out whenever. There isn't an extra celeb - they just have no eliminations in the first week.

She also abolished the dance off, and reduced the couples back to 14. And she got rid of the rock&roll and lindy hop (shame she didn't do the same with the charleston). And she signed Artem and Pasha

Aside from the fact that the public are stakeholders and going against their wishes would have resulted in a final that wouldn't have filled some with joy then there's the issue of what happens in the two-dance stage - Lisa was able to go through at Austin's expense because she was good at one dance out of two rather then being ok at both. It was a flaw in the system you only need one good dance at the two-dance stage to go through - not fair!!
It either needed to be done on the weakest dance or not at all to be fair. IMO that's what was the frell up not Toms' victory but Austin's elimination and I know that I'm not unique in that opinion yet those who voted for Austin found their votes counted for nowt.

This year proved that actually the public can get the eviction order more or less right left to their own devices.

Or they should have thought it through and seen the mathematical possibility,spotted it meant voting was pointless, and covered it with an new rule. They then could have retained the intended judges input on who went through. That way, they would either have had to split Rachel and Lisa by a second judges decision, or not fiddle a draw in the first place. They couldn't be certain that both of Lisa and Rachel would stay and Tom would go, but its still more probable that would have put Lisa and Tom in the dance off. They could then have sent the worst dancer home and still kept the two best in for the final.

I think people who advocate the return of the dance-off in the name of the quality of dance usually neglect to a degree the psychological impact of telling the audience "the judges will have final say". It seems likely to me that this would provoke the obfuscating, anti-judge, underdog supporting, rebellious voters more, countering out any positive effect the dance-off may have in itself. The dance-off itself being a minor tweaking, between two contestants who would have been in the non dance-off bottom 2 anyway, non dance-off bottom 2s overwhelmingly going to the better dancers, particularly in the later stages of the competition or early in the competition when the difference in quality of dance produced on the night is marked.

There is obviously no evidence for this, as there is no real solid evidence either way on the dance-off, as you can't run the same series twice, in separate unrelated timespaces, once with the dance-off and once without. However, it may be worth bearing in mind that of the 6 series run without a dance-off, 4 were won by the judges overall favourite contestant and 1 by the judges second favourite. Of the 3 series run without it, 1 was won by the judges favourite and 0 by their second favourite.

The series 6 argument for me comes about more as a result of a withdrawl than the dance-off in and as of itself. If Series 6 had been run straight, with the dance-off and no withdrawl, it seems likely to me that neither Rachel nor Lisa would have got any closer to the trophy than they did. In Series 5 a lack of withdrawl may well have cost Alesha the title, meaning that none of the dance-off series would have seen a judges favourite win. So much for it strengthening the role of dance in the show.

The audience as a whole are stakeholders but that small fraction that chooses to vote aren't entitled to more consideration than the rest of us.


She beat him by two points on the judges' scorecard, suggesting that over the two disciplines she was better on the night. I strongly doubt that if the situation was reversed you would be complaining. His problem was that by then, in the (informed and qualified) view of the judges, she waas not only beginning to approach perfection in her ballroom but was more than passable at her later latins.


Not fair to whom? To those whose performance is mediocre in both disciplines rather than the one who produces relative excellence in at least one? He was the worst dancer on the night. The dance off gave him a chance to redeem himself and he failed to take it. Unlike the situation when Lisa first found herself in the dance -off. She was in the botton two on the Judges' scorecard .but she turned it around. That was when Goodman went batshit on air about being put in the position of having to vote out one of the best dancers while markedly inferior dancers stayed in.


Oh I see. The dance off would have been fair if it had been set up to Austin Healey's advantage. As it happens , on the. ir weakest dance, there was only one point between them. He might nave lost even then. However, given that we are talking about amateurs, surely they should be judged on what they have achieved rather than what they haven't.


As is the case with everyone who votes for an eliminated dancer.


Which simply means that you were not heavily invested in anyone eliminated earlier.

[quote=Devils_Advocate;55495857]The audience as a whole are stakeholders but that small fraction that chooses to vote aren't entitled to more consideration than the rest of us.

Of course they do - Its ridiculous to think otherwise.
Without those bothering to vote then you have no show.
Dont think for a second that the show would continue on primetime if there was no public voting involved.

[quote=Scencia;55496566]
There are plenty of shows in primetime without voting. Without the celebrities gettig the reward for their effort, the standard of the show will fall, affecting all of us.

It only meant voting for Tom was pointless. They should have announced that he was in the dance off with whichever of the other two got less public votes.

Was this the only time that two dancers finished on the same judges' score? I ask because of the insistence by some that it could only have happened because of skullduggery by the judges. The people who whined about it did so because they knew there was little chance that Tom could outdance either of the other two in a dance off.