We've all heard the infamous words "according to the rules of Strictly" tossed around at different times, but has anyone ever actually seen a list of these rules? After this weekends non-dance off I tried to find a list of the rules on the internet but no luck. Then I read comments from former Strictly pros who thought if a contestant can't participate they should be eliminated and I thought if *they* don't know the rules of Strictly, who would/should? I know it's an entertainment program, but shouldn't all contests have a known set of guidelines instead of something that gets made up as we go along?

Somehow I picture the "Rules of Strictly" engraved on two stone tablets, kept so securely in a vault at the BBC that Indiana Jones would be needed to find them.

Where have these rules come from...they even stated that this has never happened before,

I felt sorry for Zoe trying to convince people that there was a rule for this situation in place.

She said it that fast that I had trouble keeping up with it...

Well! It took them an awful long time to find the "rules" last night.

I seem to remember in the past there were some rules on the website. I think it covered things like circumstances in which a dancer could get a bye into the next round (not in the latter stages of the competition), what happens if someone has to drop out with regard to number of finalists, and some other stuff. But I don't ever recall it mentioning what would happen if someone became unable to perform between dance and dance off.

Just had a look on the website, but I can't find anything like that now, only voting terms and conditions.

Nah, it's more like a crushed cigarette packet hastily pulled out a pocket and a sticky biro.

I honestly don't believe there was such a rule. If you look at the spoiler thread and see how long it took for the result especially considering there was no dance off. I think the producers were desperate to keep Anastacia in and must have been in a panic trying to think of how to do that so came up with the supposed rule.

Whilst I tend to agree with you regarding the veracity of these fabled 'rules' I wouldn't take the comments of certain former pros with much authority. Some of these people have an expensive lifestyle to maintain since they burned their bridges and will say anything critical if it brings in a few more quid.

Having said all that, I think the decision was complete bunkum designed to retain someone we have at least heard of for another week

They had to translate them from the original Latin they were written in around 10 BC (roughly about the time of Anton's birth) and so it all took some time.

I can see both sides of this controversy over the weekend events. I feel for both Anastasia and for Melvin, however, I would love to see this rule come in rather than see the final decision down to Len. If the panel can't agree, it should go to the public vote IMHO. I think it would be fairer all round.

No-one can forsee all eventualities and write a set of rules to cover them.

If you were the Strictly Producer, you wouldn't want to limit your options based on your (or your predecessor's) guess about what could happen and what to do if it did.

It's also an entertainment show first and foremost, and the 'competition' is just a format for that. Fairness is part of the format.

I expect there's a "rule," to cover the situation whereby, if a competitor having got through on a "medical exemption" or whatever, is then unable to continue the following week, then there will be no elimination the following week.

I think the general rule of Strictly is in the event of an emergency break the glass on the public vote.

So true! It was probably something they hadn't envisaged happening, and it hard to cover everything. I once took 70 children on a geography field trip and had made a 37 page report for everything that could go wrong and how we would deal with it. The one weather situation I overlooked was flooding, and yep we had a flood! Doesn't matter how prepared you think you are, circumstances will always circumvent you

I posted this on the "It takes two" thread:

From the BBC Strictly web site:

Voting terms and conditions
"There are a number of contingencies which could occur during or before each show, as with any other live television programme. Contingencies cover withdrawal of any celebrity, professional dancer or judge for health reasons or other unforeseen circumstances or outside the control of the BBC. The remedial actions may include, but not be limited to changing the format of the show, including, removing, substituting or adding acts and/or judges; and cancelling, suspending or altering voting or one of the voting methods at any time. In the event of any celebrity leaving the competition, the BBC will decide on contingency plans as it deems necessary and appropriate to the circumstances."

News:
"Due to an existing injury, Anastasia was unable to take part in the dreaded Dance Off. Under the rules of the show in the absence of a Dance Off, the couple with the fewest viewer votes leave the competition."

Make of it what you will.

One wonders that should the BBC have wanted a different eventuality, that an "alternative" rule would have been found.

Nothing personal against Anastasia, but due to her "high profile" and her injury will she get a "start" next week? The situation borders on the ridiculous.

I can't see if the injury was so severe she had to have a restructured routine last week, how she will be able to cope with an increasingly rigorous training programme in the weeks to come.

Maybe it would be best for her to forget "the show must go on," think about her health, bale out now and there be no elimination next week.
Given the judges and the public vote, Melvin would likely go out next week anyway if this hadn't happened. So the result would be the same.

That's the only time that "Anton" and "Latin" in the same sentence makes sense.

There are a number of contingencies which could occur during or before each show, as with any other live television programme. Contingencies cover withdrawal of any celebrity, professional dancer or judge for health reasons or other unforeseen circumstances or outside the control of the BBC. The remedial actions may include, but not be limited to changing the format of the show, including, removing, substituting or adding acts and/or judges; and cancelling, suspending or altering voting or one of the voting methods at any time. In the event of any celebrity leaving the competition, the BBC will decide on contingency plans as it deems necessary and appropriate to the circumstances.

I don't think that the legal disclaimer on the voting is the same as the actual rules of the competition. Lawyers always put a "we can do what we want, whenever we want" line into the disclaimers.

While totally agreeing that you can never envisage every eventuality, I just can't get my head round the idea of taking 70 children on a field trip. I mean .....SEVENTY?

Of course all Strictly rules are covered by Strictly Come Dancing rule 85/4 b (ii).

Which basically says that those running the show can do what the heck they like so long as people keep watching. So in this instance Melvin had to go cos no one could work out where he came from and why he was there, he still had to show his pass to get OUT of the studio.

He was rubbish anyway.

Anastasia will go soon enough, and I am voting for her. Really did think she would have some rhythm going on.
Hope Greg, the EastEnders one and gymnast go soon as well. Still gives plenty of time to nip to loo when they are on screen.

There must be some rules in the celebs' contracts, which specify under what circumstances they must leave the competition, or stay in, especially considering that significant sums of money can hinge on that decision.

Perhaps Judge Rinder, who was on site, may have been consulted too

How times change, decades ago, a friend who was a head of department at a big London school, used to with other members of staff, take teenagers on field trips for a week at a time.
They had a budget for the cost of the trip.
The only pre-trip checks they made was one against the list for all the supplies, food etc., needed while they were way.
First item on the list?

A case of scotch!

Field trips still happen, as you say, with various members of staff - not sure about the Scotch though!

Thing is, Sydrob in his/her post implied he/she took 70 kids on his/her own!!!!!

I don't think that was uncommon at one time, possibly when kids were more disciplined than some are today. So more controllable. I wouldn't want that responsibility now.

'elf n' safety has been a growth industry costing a fortune, much of it is necessary, but not everything.