[Vicky.]

Yeah, so it happened once years ago.

What has happened since then has been that judges with 2 acts in the bottom have voted last, so the deadlock option is there. Its just very suspicious as to why do it again now after years of it being different

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Yeah, so it happened once years ago.

What has happened since then has been that judges with 2 acts in the bottom have voted last, so the deadlock option is there. Its just very suspicious as to why do it again now after years of it being different

also, back then would I be right in saying that there were only 3 judges? If so then it's not the same situation at all

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Niamhxo

also, back then would I be right in saying that there were only 3 judges? If so then it's not the same situation at all

Nah there were 4 judges then

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Nah there were 4 judges then

oh right. Anyway, I don't see why people have such a big issue with them just clarifying things for us? Make a rule and stick with and then no one has any grounds to complain about it

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Niamhxo

oh right. Anyway, I don't see why people have such a big issue with them just clarifying things for us? Make a rule and stick with and then no one has any grounds to complain about it

Well yeah, this is the thing.

They shouldnt be able to just pick and chose when and who they do this to.

Either the judge with 2 has to vote before last, or they can wait until last to take it to deadlock. Its unfair if it depends which acts/judges are bottom