Never stopped them before when it suited them. Gabby Logan v Penny (it'll be jolly embarrassing if she's out before her hubby performs) Lancaster, anyone? And, I seem to recall they explicitly put Laetitia Dean through her first dance off on the basis of potential rather than her performance that night?

Yes they could have broken the rule - but goodness there would have been a fuss because it was obvious that the Salsa was worse than the Waltz.

I'm beginning to think the couples should do their worse dance in the dance off. But, then Rachel going out because of her Paso would have made me livid - can't win.

The show should hire me BECAUSE I AM ALWAYS RIGHT and in moments of injustice I could announce myself in a booming voice and pronounce judgement .

Then ALL WOULD BE WELL

You're wrong actually because Rachel's paso would have been up against Christine's cruddy tango (sorry Christine fans but even you have to admit that it was really awful) so she would have been fine

I'm not in favour of a dance-off when it comes to two dances, but I do think that the couples should get to choose which dance they do in the dance-off. In this instance, I felt Austin had already given everything to the first salsa. I'm sure a lot of couples would choose their higher scoring dance, but it would allow for any stumbles first time round, or whatever.

But having a choice about which dance to do in the dance off still leaves the problem of concentrating on one dance and getting through the danceoffs on one speciality. It was widely perceived, on this board at least, that Lisa 'got through on ballroom' .

WHAT? ME? WRONG? MY OMNISCIENCE CHALLENGED?

THIS CAN NOT BE!


shit

But I'm glad though

Oh, sure. That's why I'm not in favour of a dance-off when it gets to two dances. I'm pretty sure the BBC won't change the system, except perhaps in the semis now.

I would have a set 'dance off dance' which all the contestants have to learn and which would alter each week, maybe alternating between Ballroom and Latin, maybe even being drawn from a hat at the end of the Sunday show.

The dance, which would be the same dance for all the contestants, would be choreographed by an independant choreographer and include set steps and take into acount the week of the competition they were in.

That way, the dance off couples could be seen in direct comparision to each other and their ability judged accordingly. I'd also try to make it so that it's not a dance that has been performed in that week of competition.

It would be no different to what they would be expected to do when it came to the 2 dance a week situation, anyway - and at which point the dance off would stop.

This sounds sensible but remember Gary Rhodes trying to do one?

Oh well, I suppose they could just walk around a bit with added bits of random shuffling, to two dances instead of one. Might be a laugh.

There's no excuse though, really is there?

They get, what?, a month of training before the first show and if they take the same format as this year then it's another 2 weeks before they compete again. Plenty of time - if they do the time, not a few hours dancing and double that whinging about it It could have been a way for Mr Rhodes to get his ballroom dance in, as well!

I just think it would be a fairer way of comparing the ability of the celebs side by side - and avoid the charges that one celeb goes through on an easier, less technical routine.

The pro's would do the best routine for their celeb to keep them out the dance off in the first place. The dance off dance would be a way of determining which one should stay against like for like.

No you are right - this is very sensible, how practical, I don't know.

I also like Sportsfan's idea of a fifth 'technical' judge who gives marks for difficulty and technique whilst the other judges remain and do their own weird random things.

The standard was very high with Tom, Rachel and Austin in the last four which is why Lisa shouldn't have been there and very defintely should not have been put through to the last three. She was put through over a far superior dancer and a vastly more improved dancer on two previous occasions so it shouldn't have come as a surprise that she was put through over Austin.

Nothing to do with Austin or Erin or any mistakes she/he/they may have made and only to do with the BBC's agenda this series. I wish them the best of luck flogging their dead horse.

Good luck with flogging your dead horse!

I like Aggs idea - but I guess it would still then be down to the judges to choose - and we know that they have been very random (I am being polite) this series. I mean, the same dance being scored between 7 and 10?? Now to me that's mad. I have no idea what the judges have been on this series. So even on the same dance in a dance off they may see things differently.

Not sure about the 5th judge - as to me it's not about being technically perfect all the time but also about entertaining the audience. The fact that Tom won, being the least technically correct in the final by quite a way, shows that a lot of people feel the same.
If we just wanted perfect dancing we could watch the professionals.

Perhaps the way forward is a mark for technical merit and one for artistic impression - like they do in skating! But it's always going to end up being about an opinion.

i think it's a stupid rule anyway. 1 dance shouldn't detemine whether someone goes through, especially when there's a risk of the better dancer leaving.
but that would defeat the point of a dance-off. which is why the dance-off is pointless. well i think so anyway.

rachels paso was absolutley horendous, she nearly fell over, tripped, no choreography (or lack of), all posing (like her tango she did a week later), and damn right rubbish!! even if Christines Tango wasnt brilliant, rachel was still overmarked so it wouldnt be fair then..
Even though the judges would always of kept rachel in, even if she fell over and didnt get back up again!!
ive finished rambling on now , whats done is done!!

Come on tomandaustin! You say that Rachel's Paso didn't have much content - but Len also thought that Austin's had even less - if you like Austin's paso in spite of Len's comment, you blow a whacking big hole in your argument about the content of Rachel's.

So the BBC SCD secret nobbler slipped some 'dance a bit crap' pills in Austin's tea then?

Hey this horse is still twitching a bit!

I do wish they would grapple with the problem of marking those who do more technically demanding dances less than perfectly as against those who do really basic routines very well, especially in the later rounds. It has often seemed to me that ambitious choreographers like Vincent (for Louisa and to some extent for Rachel) and Flavia (for Matt di) are penalised against choreographers who routinely trot out very basic stuff.

I actually favour the radical idea of everyone dancing the same dance each week. Did we all die of boredom when we had to watch 3 AT's on the same show? No, and it made it pretty easy to conclude who did the best job. It might calm the ridiculous over marking down too. Would Lisa's perfectly nice but nothing sublime waltz really have achieved those marks performed alongside Cherie, Austin and Rachel and even Christine's? I don't think so.

Totally agree with this, I can't bear to see complex and difficult routines not given any credit, whilst simpler ones are praised for being danced well (or even, sometimes, badly, by Len, Lisa's AT springing immediately to mind.)

And, to be fair, Austin's AS was quite difficult too.

There would have been a huge fuss from Brendan, of course. But would Joe Public actually have been bothered? It appears that Brendan and Lisa were not getting many votes and the public got shut of them as soon as they could, whereas Austin seemed pretty popular. I believe his average score from the judges was still higher than Lisa and Brendan's at that point so they could have justified a decision on overall capability and potential. Them's not the rules, but as I say, they don't follow the rules when it suits.

I don't. I like a nice waltz or foxtrot here and there, but I don't have the attention span or the interest to watch TWELVE WALTZES in a row. Even half an half at that stage is more than enough. If they don't start with a half an half it's too much at the beginning, and if they do start with a half an half it's difficult to manipulate the finalists into performing the same dance(s) at the end. You have no idea which half the finalists will come from.

They could just do half and half with a straight swap the following week with the easier dances for each discipline progressing up to the harder ones as the weeks go by. At least then the relative skill levels would be similar enough to judge fairly.

Austin and Erin went out on 6th December (or 7th if you didn't check the spoilers!) - so can't we put this one to bed now folks??! Or are we all going to carry on uber-analyzing every aspect of the the entire series until the next one starts??

strictlyfloss don't be so mean and beastly - I ADORE analysis, over and otherwise, and I am in MOURNING for SCD and need to 'pick over the carcass' a bit.

No we are not 'picking over the carcass', I take that back. We are engaged in constructive and interesting conversations which, figuratively, resemble more of a POSTMORTUM (and I love those forensic shows).