A dance-off reprise of the worst dance as opposed to the best can be circumvented by the following ruse.

The couple in danger of dance-off, which at this stage is ANY of the 3 couples, can arrange to deliberatly underperform in their best dance and get marked low accordingly. In the dance-off this couple will be meetubg the other couple dancing their genuine worst dance.

However in the dance-off the artful couple will suddenly unveil their truly BEST dance in its dazzling glory, thus knocking out the other couple who are honestly dancing their worst dance.

I think the dance off should;ve been scrapped at the two dance stage. By then all the dancers were good enough for the final, so why should the judges still have the opportunity to have a say?

What an excellent idea soulmate! However they would then be accused of having a game plan, like David Van Day, and their name would be mud on this forum for a week at least.

Everybody's name is mud in this forum no matter what they do.

More than once the judges have said they decide the dance-off by how much improvement was shown in the second try, i.e. the relative merit not the absolute merit. Cherie, marked higher than Lisa on her cha cha cha first time round was evicted for showing no improvement in the dance-off.

Couples fully expecting to be in the dance-off need to hold back some eyecatcher to unleash for survival -- like Napoleon holding back the Imperial Guard for a last throw, lol.

Where is it ordained that it is "our show"? It is an entertainment programme produced by the BBC. "We" have no claim to it.

And in reality, the programme is now set, so I doubt very much that an relatively small petition on an internet forum at this late late stage will achieve anything at all.

Actually we all own the BBC so it is our show. All of ours

So you're saying Austin was screwed then.

I'll join this petition.
I really want Tom to win but that's not the reason.
If one of the couples were getting more public votes than the others then I'd feel guilty if my favourite couple got through instead just because the judges like them more than the public does.

I bet the judges already have 11's on their score cards in preparation for Rachel's performance.

I don't think anyone is saying Austin did not deserve to go dance wise but its the fact we are encouraged to vote but actualy realisticly we don't have a hope in saving our favourite even if they end up second (or third out of four with Austin).

The dance off needs to be scrapped by week 11 IMO.

Er, they only have 10 paddles.
But they have arranged for a fifth 10 paddle ready for Rachel.

In which case more fool the people who vote.

The judges know far more about dancing than the general public and should have more say NOT less. If it was down to the public no doubt John Seargent would be this years winner.

only if they insist on keeping the dance off. I would recommend nobody votes whilst they insist on keeping it in later weeks.

Early weeks are not a problem as it does eliminate weaker dancers.

Due to John going without a dance off we are reduced to a 2 person final again with the judges having total control over one of the places and potential control over the other. This is what is wrong with the judges voting in a dance off this week

Will be a pyrrhic victory to win only because the judges put you up against the least popular person from the semis.

The judges lost their right to choose a finalist after the way they treated John Sergeant

well the truth is WE lost the right instead when John left. The judges have all the power now. Thats irony for you.

Yes we didn't bully anyone though- they did- did you get the PM I sent you

I'm not sure about the scrapping of the dance-off all together but there's an argument for doing it at the two-dance stage or changing it so it goes on the weaker dances so those who can't dance of either latin or ballroom so well (which I think applies to Lisa) can't get through by playing their only strong suit above an all-rounder as surely the whole point apart from time-filling is to test contestants in both displines. If you're in the dance-off then it's because your weakest dance so it makes more sense that it's that you should reprise. If you disagree with the judges you can save your favourite from the dance-off before the two-dance stage - JS proved that meaning your vote means something if Austin proved you can't do that then the public vote becomes meaningless which is surely as wrong if not more wrong than the JS situation which got the judges knickers in a twist.

I personally think that the problem is a battle between the wishes of judges and sections of the public with if Tom goes next Saturday no compromise - whatever you think of Rachel and Lisa it's been proved that the public on the whole do not particularly care about them and a final of two choices which the public didn't want isn't right.

Usually speakers only go up to 10, but Spinal Tap changed all that.

I wouldn't put anything past the judges to keep Rachel in the competition. Watch out for one of them throwing a banana skin on the floor for either Lisa or Tom's dances.

No it will be the Usual:

Craig: I have a problem with your hands Tom/LIsa
Arlene: You need to lift your rib cage more Tom/Lisa
Len: All that messing about Tom/Lisa
Bruno: some mumbo jumbo.

If indeed that is the case, where is our proof of ownership, share certificates or whatever?

Then why are we given the option to vote at all?

I agree. May as well make the 0898 numbers instead and listen to a brucie joke.

That wouldn't be such a waste of time.

Or

Tess "Thanks you for calling Strictly Come Dancing. You have voted for * & * *then Craig's voice interrupts with "and wasted 15p darling ha ha ha!"

Bring it on!