What money did the BBC grab? The BBC makes no money from the phone votes.



There's nothing about the placings or the vote that means the voting public does not care. There's no "I don't care" vote. Voting for one couple does not mean you "don't care" about the others.


What was the "luck"? They survived because of their dancing.

Really? So why do they use premium rate numbers that cost 15p per call. Someone is getting the money!

The judges consipred to ensure Tom would be automatically in the dance off - the only way to ensue this would happen was if there was a tie on the top of the leader board with Tom in 3rd. Surprise, Suprise - this is what happened. They did not anticipate that the BBC would fail to let the viewers know they couldnt save Tom.

You have to believe me here - the judges are really not that clever.

Ok, lets put it like this if you save someone it means you care enough to do if you don't then it means you don't - that is the 'don't care' vote the vote by negation.

They survived because of the judges opinion of their dancing - yes Rachel is good and Lisa's ballroom is good but I could certainly make a case for Lisa's latin meaning she was a lucky girl to survive - the jive for example.

If you read my previous posts in the thread, you'll get a much more detailed explanation, but the luck is this:

If Rachel had more scored points than Lisa (as I think she should have done; Len should have given Lisa a 9 at most for her AT) and was the least popular with the public, the phone vote would have gone ahead and as normal and both Lisa & Rachel would have been in the dance off if Tom got the most public votes.

If there had been no tie between Lisa & Rachel, then any combination of the three couples could have ended up in the dance off (although Tom would have been out). Consequently, both Lisa & Rachel have been saved from a situation which would have pushed one of them out of the competition. Tom has been more lucky because he wouldn't have survived the dance off, but that doesn't mean that the girls have been given a completely luck free ticket to the final.

Of course Tom would have gone out in the dance off if the rules hadn't been suspended (because asking viewers to vote for Tom was a waste of time because of the tie between Lisa & Rachel), but that is irrelevant because the rules had to be suspended.

I'm glad that all three of them are in the final, but (unlike some people), I think all three of them deserve to be in the final too.

Yes, really.

Perhaps so, but the BBC isn't making money from it.

The negation of "care enough to do X" is not "don't care".

People will tend to vote for their (one) favourite couple. Voting for one couple does not mean you "don't care" about the others.


Where's the luck?

Is the judges' opinion suppose to be random, as if there were some kind of coin flip or dice throw in their heads?

Excellent post Captain Sensible.
If only people would realise that had the girls' scores NOT been tied then there is a 50/50 chance that both of them would have been in the dance off, as opposed to a 50/50 chance of the dance off being between one of them and Tom.

Also a lot of people (everyone??) seem to have forgotten that had John Sergeant not walked we could be looking at a very different scenario as regards the final three.

The phone votes were to raise money for CIN. Not that doesn't happen they are pointless - so abandon them.
Alan

No public participation = no SCD though. The outcomes can be frustrating at times (and I very rarely take part in phone votes; don't understand the attraction), but SCD just wouldn't be the same if the public weren't involved.

Same thing, surely. Just opposite sides of the same coin.

It's been said before but seem sto need repeating in this thread, had there been 4 couples still in the semi, though the chances of a 3-way tie for top position on the judes' scores would have been much lower, it would still have been there and whoever was then in fourth place would have been unable to escape the dance-off. This could have happened in any round but the likelihood is vanishingly small as the number of couples still involved increases.

Judges' conspiracy. Too hard to engineer. You'd need the co-operation of the dancers and you wouldn't get it. That leaves the judges hoping that Lisa and Rachel's dances will be sufficiently deserving of equal points, or things'll look fishy, and if they are equally deserving then no conspiracy is needed.

Is the some eminence gris behind all these allegations of conspiracies?

Oh come on, that's far too sensible.
Alan

Another Pachyderm or two is that the fewer contestants there are the more the judges score counts (wrong IMHO) and the least popular couple of those remaining is so obvious.

Not saying I go with the judges conspiracy at all - but for a start you wouldn't need the dancers co-operation.

The way the dances are judged is subjective at best, anyway, and so any score discrepancy can be explained away by the catch all of 'personal opinion'.

Reading threads here, it seems that there is a certain whiff of fishiness with the scores anyway - with percieved overmarking of Lisa and AT and undermarking of Rachel and AS in particular.

I think the conspiracy/fix thing is too far-fetched, and without evidence it's all just speculation. Some judges (more like one judge, tbh) are just inconsistent, biased, or just plain stupid.

I'm prepared to tolerate a bit of silliness from the judges (despite what you might think, I don't take SCD that seriously; I just post & analyse a lot because it stops my brain turning to mush), but I think Len's 10 for Lisa's AT is the most ridiculous mark in the history of SCD (and there would have been no resulting tie/problem [albeit at the expense of the three person final that we all want, if he had given her a 9)

But there again IMHO Bruno's 10 for Rachel's AS walk round the dance floor was also OTT

Perhaps whatever was wrong with Rachel's AS* wasn't as blatant/obvious, and Bruno's 10 was nullified by Len's 8.

(Lisa's QS was possibly only worth 38 points too, *but I'm not very confident when it comes to 'judging' ballroom dances)