It has been suggested more than once, in several different threads that the judges mark up or down to to make sure the leaderboard ends up in a particular order, or whatever, almost as if they have a pre-arranged agenda.

Now I realise this might be a bit controversial to suggest, but isn't it just possible that they give high marks to the couple they think has danced the best, and the lowest marks to the couple they think is weakest?

Oh come on, kaycee, how is that any fun??

I'm still baffled by how the judges are protecting Rachel when they placed her middle (as opposed to top) of the leaderboard?

These conspiracy theories aren't washing with me I'm afraid.

I did feel that Lisa was a touch over-marked this weekend, but then so were Austin and Tom so overall she still deserved to finish top of the heap.

What a preposterous suggestion.

I mean where's the conspiracy in that?

I think you need to go and lie down in a darkened room and put JFK on the DVD player until you get your head sorted.

Usually yes, but sometimes I do satrt to wonder whether they have an ulterior motive. Human nature I suppose.

Get a grip kaycee! You're obviously not paying enough attention.

lmao

:yawn::yawn: :sleep::sleep::sleep:

The JFK DVD'll keep you awake, don't worry.

Was going to ignore that part...

Normally yes, this weekend no.

Nah thats not possible. The judges would never be that sensible.

Elaborate Buddy!

Don't be daft - how on earth would that work?

Agreed.

Normally I NEVER buy into this conspiracy theory malarkey but by god did it see a bit like they were propping Lisa up after what happened the last couple of weeks. They seem to go rather OTT with her, especially with her Latin which was good but it wasn't THAT good.

Why do people think that the judges would agree on who should be where on the leaderboard?

I felt Lisa was being bigged-up verbally more than the others as a reponse to her landing in the dance-offs recently.

However, when it came to the scoring, she wasn't the only one who I felt was over-marked. So her position on the leaderboard was about right.

C'mon - it's not rocket science. They want the chance to get rid of the weakest dancer and they don't trust the public (with good reason) to let them. Therefore they DO award the lowest marks to the weakest couple but not necessarily the highest to the best. If Lisa were not protected by a maximum score, her lack of public vote in the past couple of weeks would suggest it would have been her and not Christine in the dance-off with Rachel.

What I means is what makes people assume the judges would agree on which person to protect, they never agree on anything else.

If they're logical and know the phone votes from week to week, they can easily agree.

1) Rachel is the best dancer for them, she will be saved by us
2) Tom and Austin have the public vote, so don't need protecting

Therefore, as long as Lisa maintains a reasonable standard, they can say her by placing her top of the leaderboard, meaning only an extreme switch in public support would see her slip up. Lisa is protected by them, Tom and Austin are protected by the public, and Rachel will succeed in the dance off. Goodbye Christine.

Or maybe I'm cynical.

Yes I think so.

They only needed to protect one of the girls this week as they could save the other in the dance off. Saturday's judges leader board just reinforces the leaked voting information in the People a couple of weeks ago.

Next week they can only protect 1 of the girls as clearly the 2 guys have a massive vote. It will be interesting to see which of them it is. Will be the only interesting thing about it.

Actually it would be interesting to know if the judges have access to the voting figures. It might put a different spin on the outrageous assumption of the OP (how dare you start a thread that has some logical basis).

Do you really think the judges are bright enough? Do you have visions of them sitting backstage with calculators? I really do think that some of the conspiracy threads on here have got really silly.

You do realise I was being sarcastic (sorry if you didn't answer to me).