True!!! But hey, if you were to make money from the SCD Live tour, you too would want the winner to be somebody who's going to be on the tour, wouldn't you? So wouldn't you prefer to have in the semis two people who signed (Tom and Rachel) plus one that has no public support so no chance of spoiling the party?
Makes sense to me. Sod what the public wants.

You could have a point unfortunately!!! (wasn't there the same argument last year when the judges put matt through?)

mind you the tour is all but sold out so at this stage it makes little difference.

You're forgetting DVD sales...

Ah silly me!!!!

well Alesha won last year and wasn't on the tour

I'm sure you could find any bizarre conspiracy theory to fit whatever theory you have but it doesn't make it more likely

I genuinely don't think the tour would be in trouble this year's winner wasn't in it

No, it's clear from a lot of the other threads on here, the judges are obviously acting in collusion to fit a pre-arranged choice.

Bear in mind that the judges also make money from the tour so they have a vested interest in maximising their profit from the results.

In any other system this'd be a clear conflict of interest. I'm amazed no-one's called them up on it - you could even make a case for a legal complaint based on this conflict I reckon.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought this was Digital Spy, a forum for people who watch tv.

I didn't realise that everyone here knows all the steps to all the 12 or so dances. So this a dancers forum then?

Back off.

At the end of the day I just think that at this late stage, it's ridiculous that someone who could have got the highest public votes went out to someone who could have got the least.

Rachel- 4 + 2 = 6
Tom- 3 + 3 = 6
Lisa- 2 + 1 = 3
Austin- 1 + 4 = 5
I'm not saying that's how it ended up, but it might have done.

I could love you. Not a smiley face in sight.

Austin could've moved through the entire competition with a mix of middling to high scores from the judges and medium votes from the public which combined on Saturday night carried him no further.

There is nothing that says he was the public's favourite; you're mistaking the hype of promoting the show with actual votes. Personally, I thought the week he danced to It's Raining Men was a desperate attempt to broaden his appeal and shore up some support. I've never even heard of him before he appeared on this show.

So it is! But you weren't saying 'he didn't seem very elegant or very good' or 'I didn't like it'. You were asserting, based on absolutely no knowledge - not even being aware what he was doing - that he wasn't good at it. You must surely see that is a little off the mark? Difference between a statement of fact and a statement of opinion.

Back off? Have I touched a nerve? Dear me! I am sorry.

Totally.

Come Back Austin! We love you!

Excellent reply and I agree with you completely.

I'm not an Austin fan, but Lisa and Rachel have been waaaaay overmarked for the past few weeks continuously. I am a ballet dancer and while not having done much ballroom or latin, do have some understanding of it, especially when it comes down to the general dancing points.

Lisa should've gone home ages ago and also Rachel has been way overmarked (Len *I can't see your feet so I'll just assume it was perfect* giving a 10)

Bad, bad, bad...

This is just a matter of opinion.
Personally I think that Rachel is overall the better dancer.
Why would the judges want Austin to go when they have liked him so much?
Austin was very good. It's just unfortunate that on the night others were a bit better.

well the do say ignorance is bliss.................

the problem is an unfair platform for the dance off
how can you compare a salsa to a waltz,
this has to addressed before the next series.
to be honest I do think the series when we had only 2 dances a week better you could see who was improving and those that were not.
to have a waltz at this late stage with all the training under your belt a bit easy look at Matt d last year.
Sort it out BBC

Or, instead, would they rather get rid of the contestant who appears to have the most public support - by a significant margin now, if the leaked figures are anywhere near accurate - and have a final which will have many loyal SCD viewers not even bothering to tune in?

Obviously everything will hinge on the performances next week, but for the judges to deliberately over-/under-mark so that Tom is sent off will send a very clear signal to the public that their opinions aren't required - unless they chime with the judges'.

To play that game once with JS was incredibly stupid, twice with Austin was madness - to do it a third time would be certifiable ... Maybe they should just scrap the public vote, let the judges decide each week and watch the ratings die?