judges' scores or their points??? Scores would be fairer, but I fear it'sgoing to be the points that are carried over

I think this news item supersedes that one.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/strictlycomedan...e_151208.shtml

I understood it that they are taking over the number of public votes and judges' points (not 3 3 1, but the total points for each dancer) and these will be added to this Saturday's results. Public votes together, judges points together - they produce new judges' totals and only from this the 3 2 1 judges' points will be calculated. Based on this they eliminate one (without a dance off). Basically they are continuing with semi finale without a dance off. Then the remaining two will dance again and only public votes will be important. Judges will have something to say, they will even give the points, but for the result it won't be relevant.

this is what was bothering me, whether it is the judges' marks or the 3,3,1 - are you sure?

I can't believe I'm logging on this morning and still no clear explanation just guesswork .... what a shambles BBC.

That's what I took from what the guy said on ITT, but the Strictly website statement I linked to makes it clear that it is the 3 3 1 that is added to the 3 2 1 from the viewers to give the starting leaderboard. I think the written statement is the one to go by.

Can't say for definite, but I am making the assumption that the scores will be carried forward and the combined judges scores will eventually be out of 160. The position on the leaderboard will then be worked out from there, assuming the BBC can do the maths.

Then the statistics are pretty simple really.

Whoever is top of the leader board there is only one combination in 6 that would make them come 3rd. For the person who comes 2nd on the leaderboard there are two combinations in six for them to come 3rd. Whoever is last on the leaderboard there are three combinations in six for them to come 3rd. So it does depend on both the dancing and the public vote, because there is less probability of getting the right combinations if you come at the bottom of the leaderboard.

I should add that if the BBC publish the order of the public vote at the start of the programme, then those who perhaps voted last week and wish they'd changed their mind should get the refund (for not realising their vote was irrelevant) and then start voting like mad to undo their previous madness.

Posted already somewhere else. Can you tell my kids are off school, sick, so I can't go to work today. Oh I'm going to post and post until I decide it would be more sensible to go and sort out my study or my finances, or try and find a babysitter for the rest of the work week!

I have read that only after I posted Yes, according to it it's as you say, it's those 3 1 1/3 2 1 points that will be rolled forward.

The statement on the website is unambiguous. It is the final leaderboard total that will be revealed (i.e. 3+x, 3+y, 1+z). We will then know x, y, and z and the order in which the contestants came in the public vote.

What I find hard to believe is that the tied top position scenario never occurred to the production team when working out their contingencies, especially as it was predicted on here days before. I wonder if they realise it can happen with any number of contestants, although becomes less likely the more there are - e.g. if the top three of four tie for first place, the fourth can't be saved.

A solution is needed for next year. Something that ensures a complete split in the rankings after the judges vote. Ideas on a postcard (although realise you are doing the production team's job for them, for free - again!).

For the first time, and its hard for me to say this as SCD is one of my fav shows, but I don't care anymore. This is turning into a complete farce.

Why not roll everything over to SCD series 7 as well. It really has shown the BBC production up.

We have had a three-way tie at the top on 36 points with Rachel on 35, so she got 3 points less than all those 1 point above her, and ended up in the dance-off, so it was a scenario which was obviously a possibility (especially if the judges only use paddles from 8 to 10)

1. Couples will dance

2. People will vote

3. Someone will get a Glitterball



Er..........Thats it!!

Unanticipated scenarios remain unanticipated:

Dec13 judges:: 3-3-1
Dec13 phones: 1-3-2 (hypothetical)

Dec20 judges:: 3-2-1 (hypothetical)
---------------------------------------------
Aggregated :::: 7-8-4 (hypothetical)

At the point when Dec20 phone vote opens, all votes for Tom on 4 points mathematically cannot save him from eviction, so will be unlawful as per OFCOM rules. Ready for another round of Tom vote refunds Mr Beasley? Or is it no evictions again?

Another scenario (Rachel-Lisa-Tom)

Dec13 judges:: 3-3-1
Dec13 phones: 2-1-3 (hypothetical)

Dec20 judges:: 2-2-3 (hypothetical, Rachel-Lisa on joint 2nd)
Dec20 phones: 1-2-3 (hypothetical)
----------------------------
Aggregated --- 8-8-10
----------------------------

Time for eviction without dance-off. Who leaves? Rachel on 8, or Lisa on 8? Or is it all 3 go through, all votes refunded?

er.... But at least the BBC have plans if someone gets injured

Well the BBC have now have had pressure applied to them by OFCOM are now offering a full refund


The BBC should have stuck to the rules. You dont chnge rules midstream just because they did not like the result

Unless they decide to roll over again, no one has said that it will definately end this week?

Thats true. Most shows do end on a cliffhanger so maybe SCD will have a message pop up saying "To be continued next year...."

The last scenario would be broken by the total public vote (both weeks combined).

But the first scenario (Tom too far behind after 3 rounds of votes to NOT finish overall last) is a real possibility, that yet again they haven't thought through. Though I would bet money that Tom doesn't finish last with the judges next week even if he falls over.

I just can't understand what everyones problem is, the final will be played out just like any other 3 person final we've had, only they start with the points they received in the semi
It is really simple

winnie

That part is teh simple part. But after the next round of judges votes its possible we could be back to square one and Tom cannot be saved It's hilarious when you think about it.

Scenario 1 - ad hoc solution could be cancel judges votes on Dec 20 and let the public decide (or create another problem).

Scenario 2 - let the public votes on Dec 20 to decide.

They did not have it all covered, because the probability is low (just like Brendan did not learn the argentine tango ), but I think they will have solutions prepared, all in favour of public, I would guess.

331, 321, 331, 123, 133, 123, 123, 111, 134, 322................aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think it will probably seem to work OK for those who are neutral.

In that case, is there a contingency plan to have no voting after round 3, if Tom is in the position of being unable to win?! It's that they opened the phone lines for Tom that caused the problem on Saturday, surely, not that he couldn't avoid the dance off?

But this is a complete nonsense. The judges being allocated an additional point in the weighting is no different from Len suddenly producing an 11 paddle one week.