In the Telegraph today:
New rules for Strictly Come Dancing will mean a contestant who finishes bottom of the judges’ leader board for three weeks in a row will be automatically ejected without participating in a dance-off.

The "three strikes and you’re out" plan has emerged following John Sergeant’s success on the BBC show.

The 64-year-old political journalist has been repeatedly been saved by the public vote despite being panned by the judges

The new rules will be adopted for the next series in a bid to prevent a repeat performance.

"Rule changes are definitely afoot for the next series and the one that is being discussed would certainly please the judges because it would give them more power" a source said.

Sounds reasonable.

Sounds like a great idea to me. It would make the couples work really hard to stay out of the bottom.

Yes, it would give the Judges back the power to over-rule Public opinion.

And if they were to couple that with a change of host as well.

Would the show be as entertaining anymore?

I think not.

Can't say it makes a whole lot of sense to me...but it keeps the story in the papers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...e-Dancing.html

They might also like to change the name of the show to Celebrity Dance Factor.

I have a better idea - if a dancer is in the dance off three weeks in a row they have to go. That way we will be spared from the judges over ruling the public all the time!

If they have a new leaderboard rule they might as well just invite young, fit actors and sportspeople and how boring would that be.

It wouldn't be surprised, but it would certainly annoy me if they would do that (and no I'm not a John fan). At the end of the day, they might just get rid of the voting and just have the judges decide who goes and who stays.

Not sure I like the idea of that. The judges have changed the rules once already with the dance off, to give them more power. It's all getting very petty and tit-for-tat - and is something that would alter the entire feel of the show.

Also, what would happen, if someone ended up bottom of the leader board for the 3rd time? Would they shuffle off but the phone vote and dance off for that week still go on - so you loose 2 couples in the one week? In a 14 week run there is the potential to have 4 couples in the bottom 2 3 times in which case the series would be over sooner! Or will they have to increase () the couples to take that into account ...

I don't see that as workable at all.

If that's the case then there would be no public vote that week. There'd also be absolutely no need for a results show - so what do they put in that pre-planned 45 minutes on Sunday?

Indeed...it reads like they're just milking the JS story to me.

I don't count rule changes out...this is a perfect excuse for the judges / producers to grab more power...but this doesn't seem like a viable change.

Will anybody bother voting then??

it would completely negate any purpose of a public vote at all. If a couple was bottom of the leader board for the 3rd week running they may as well cancel the results show dance off etc for that week and not have a public vote at all.

John is obviously popular with the public who are keeping him in.

If this is brought in it means that they will have to ensure that the contestants are all on a more level playing field to start with to make it more fair. It was clear from the first programmes that certain contestants were head and shoulders above the rest (Tom Austin Rachel Cherie (at first)) and others were cannon fodder (Phil Gillian Jessie Gary JOHN).

SCD IS NOT a pure dancing competition - it is a light entertainment show as well which is why the result comes from two sources. The judges vote on the technical dancing side and the public vote on the light entertainment side. If the judges were more objective and impartial with their marks and comments the public vote may not be so out of kilter with the judges (I actually have a sneaky feeling that John apart, the voting on the rest of the pack would mostly agree with the judges).

The judges need to look at the dances on two levels -

1. the technical merit and artistry of the performance given on the night: AND

2. the relative improvement of the celebs week on week from their own starting point.

Tom Rachel and Lisa have clearly had some dancing experience which gives them a distinct advantage from the beginning. John, Jodie and Christine started from the absolute basics - and when you compare Jodie's first and most recent performances you really can see how far she has come and how much she has developed during the show. Austin is just in a class of his own - no previous dancing experience to speak of but obviously just a natural.

At the moment they are judging gazelles against elephants and of course the gazelles are going to do better looking more technical darnces compared to the others. But the elephants may actually have improved more week to week.

Those who top the leader board regularly haven't actually shown much improvement week on week Tom and Austin have been good from the first outing and Austin's rumba apart have been consistent and haven't improved as much as say Lisa Christine and Jodie. Likewise you can't really ever compare an elderly overweight and unfit political reporters dance with that of a superfit sportsman or pop princess who has had dancing lessons and probably does lots of aerobics classes

It is rare for a couple to be at the bottom of the leader board for three weeks in a row. I cannot remember another occasion when this has happened.

Editing to say I would rather see super-fit sportsmen or pop princesses than elderly overweight anybody. Too close to home!

If anyone were really in any doubt why the celebs enter Strictly, it's up ^^^^ there in the Rachel article (http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/strictly...rk-offers.html). It's not about learning a new skill - or in some cases brushing up an old one - it's a business opportunity.

Can I just add before Rachel fans leap on me , I'm not saying for a minute it's a bad thing or that she's on her own in that but she is the one the article is about - just that the prime directive for the celebs involved isn't necessarily getting their hands on the glitter ball. Probably adds a few quid to their marketability in the short term, though

So after a bit of waffle, my main point is that it's a bit daft of the judges to get all po-faced about the integrity of the show when what the actual integrity of the show is, is questionable at best.

Yes..but he may be very unpopular with the 'public' who aren't keeping him in...and they may far outnumber his supporters.


I don't think it will be brought in...but I don't see why they have to do that. They make the rules. Contestants either agree to the rules or don't take part...and viewers either accept the rules or don't watch.


Improvement stories on Strictly can be fairly mythological. Sometimes all it takes is one poor dance at the beginning or a favourable schedule of dances to create 'improvement' that doesn't really exist or is at least over-hyped. And then how do you compare Rachel's improvement from good to very good with someone who improves from poor to not bad?

Fiona and Brendan, I think were bottom 3 3 times on the trot - going out ironically the 4th week when they weren't bottom . Christopher Parker must have been , and the gardner chappie* with Nicole propped up the leader board for a few weeks. Kate and Anton were bottom at least 3 times one after the other as well.

The thing is, if the judges know they have that escape route open to them then it wouldn't be hard to misuse.

*Edited for Dairmund Gavin
Last edited by mindyann : 19-11-2008 at 08:25

don't like it. won't judges just manipulate their scores to secure who's in the bottom pair each week rather than judge dances more 'objectively'?

Don't believe it at all. As they've shown over the final more than once, the main thing the BBC don't want is a week where the public don't vote or to finish the series a week early. So how would this possibly work?

This is just to make us more anti-judge so we vote more.

My main concern would be the judges deciding to manipulate their scores to get rid of someone, and dont think it doesnt happen because its definately happened before. The LAST thing we need is the judges to have MORE power. In the situation we have at the moment John its obvious to everyone that John is not such a technically good dancer as the others and therefore nobody could really complain about him being at the bottom of the board. However its not always as clear cut as that. I cant see it working and I cant see it being brought in, people wouldnt bother voting.

While not unreasonable, although it will be fuel to the fire for those who don't have any confidence in the integrity of the judging, I can't see how that can work with the current format of the programme.

There are some tweaks they should make to the judge's scoring. The judges and public are supposed to get 50% of the vote each with the public getting the casting vote in the event of a tie. However the public vote is unlikely to produce two couples with the same number of votes so the points will always be e.g. 10, 9, 8, 7... However the judges regularly mark couples the same. And if three people get first place they marking goes e.g. 10, 10, 10, 7... It would be fairer if they actually marked them 9, 9, 9, 7 so they share the marks for 1st, 2nd and 3rd. However even that isn't 50-50. To be 50-50 the judges should have to vote the couples into order with no ties the same as the public.

However it would even better if the results were based on the proportion of the total marks awarded or votes cast that each couple received.

I think there is also a lot to be said for the judges being allowed to use half marks as it might spread out the scoring a bit.

Ridiculous idea.

Not a JS fan but I think its a bad idea.

I don't see why they can't do it on a studio audience vote

If this article is based on fact then I don't think it is a good idea. They may as well not bother with the public vote. This whole thing is becoming ridiculous. Either a decision is made that SCD is judged as proper dancing competition whereby all celebs chosen start off on the same level playing field. The judges decide who stays and who goes with no public participation or they leave it as it is and keep schtum when things don't go they way they want them to.

Thanks Mindyann. I was in New Zealand when Fiona was on and my mind had wiped out the Chris Parker debacle. However I should have remembered Kate.