It would have been much better if another celebrity had replaced John Sargent. They could bring in some stand-by celebs if one pulls out. Then there wouldn't have been much chaos like this year. Also when Kelly Brook pulled out last year just because her father died. She might have taken a week off for beravement and back again the following week.

Is it a good idea?

Not good.

A 'spare' contestant who can be eliminated at some point in the final few weeks would be more sensible.

Or bring back the one who lost the previous dance-off
Alan

I agree, I was going to suggest that whilst a replacement in week 2 might be feasible it would be impossible for someone to catch up in the later stages of the competition, but thinking about it even in week 2 a replacement contestant would be at a huge disadvantage because they start training quite a few weeks before the competition starts.

I think someone on the forum suggested before that they start with an extra contestant and have a double ilimination at some point in the final weeks, that way if someone pulls out they could just scrap the double ilimination. But that would mean seventeen couples next year. And that would be crazy!

Or just roll-over the votes to the next week and have no dance-off in the week the celeb leaves.

that's a more sensible idea

No! Why should someone just be slotted in after say 10 weeks after not having slogged their way through to earn that place?

It would not be practical even in the early stages, as that replacement would not have had the benefit of the three weeks or so of training before the main show starts, unless of course that training was undertaken with an additional pro who would also come in. But as the series progresses that couple entering later 7 later would be at a greater & greater disadvantage.

And what if a second person drops out?

It would not work.

I think then you'd get people complaining they were being given a second chance and, unless it was someone who was good and went unexpectedly early, that wouldn't be popular.

The easiest solution is just to postpone the elimination for a week.

That has to be the most sensible, practical and fair option all round. It really stumps me as to why the producers have not implemented this previously.

No chance. It would be so unfair for someone to just skip eight weeks of votes and automatically get in.

I disagree (to some extent)

John Sargeant could not have been replaced by another new celebrity - 8 other couples had been eliminated and it would've been too unfair just to plonk another celeb in after all that.

They could roll over the week so as to ensure a 3 person final; which they could've and should've done this time.

They could've replaced Jimmy Tarbuck though as he left after a week and therefore wouldn't have been too much to catch up. A bit like Michael Underwood being replaced on DOI - that was in the 3rd week

Nope, I don't think you can just slot another celebrity into the space. I think they should do as DWTS do and just roll over the points to the next week and miss an elimination if someone has to leave.
Last edited by whiplashed : 14-12-2008 at 16:32

I know - they did it on Dancing with the Stars when one of the celebrities had to withdraw because of an injury.

no!!! its easy - 16 couples, but start one week later, with a planned 2 person elimination near the end if one person doesn't leave under other circumstance

Or, someone else had an idea about not voting out until everyone had done both a ballroom and a latin, so if the first elimination was not until week two there could be a double elimination later in the series if required.

I always feel bad for the person who goes out first and think it would be nice if everyone got a chance to be in for at least two weeks.

I like that idea, but there is no reason, of course, why we would have to start with seventeen couples - 15 or lower would be fine.

This is what they should have done. They have had three series to get it right!

That must be the best solution, surely?

Well I think its a good idea for the first few weeks - a bit like Dancing on Ice. Like when that Jimmy bloke left, they could have given Flavia the substitute.

I think if anyone leaves after the gender merge, then do a roll over.

I disagree about putting a voted out contestant back though - once gone, they should be gone for good - no matter how talented they were

I'm a supporter of the DWTS process (i.e. roll over with no elimination).

Yes, a double elimination at some point would be nice. If all else went as planned, then the double elimination could be done in the semi-finals.

Of course, if there were TWO couples who pulled out, then that's another problem altogether.

Yep...


...and/or yep. Think outside the box Auntie Beeb!