Montenegro Vladana Breathe Eurovision 2022 rehearsal

Romania has already expressed outrage and anger over the cancellation of its jury result by the European Broadcasting Union. And now Montenegro has followed suit, questioning how and why the EBU reached the decision to annul its votes (along with those from Azerbaijan, Georgia, San Marino, Romania and Poland).

Here’s the official statement from broadcaster RTCG. It makes it clear that the country’s results were initially received and approved without any questions…

Montenegro: RTCG statement on excluded Eurovision jury vote

“After the information made on the Eurovision website that the voting of juries in six countries was contested at the second semifinal evening of the Eurovision Song Contest 2022, we would like to inform the public that we have sent a request for clarification to authorized representatives of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU).”

“[After the submission of our jury votes], they stated that the RTCG voting took place following the regular procedure, and after that it was duly certified by the EBU, and they saw no reason to suspect any form of irregularity and expect a detailed answer to that question.”

“When it came to the final night, as the audience could see in a live television broadcast, the votes were announced publicly and the taste of our jury largely coincided with the ‘schedule’ of countries on the final table.”

How were votes determined for excluded countries?

As previously explained, the EBU replaced the jury votes from Azerbaijan, Georgia, Montenegro, Romania, San Marino and Poland with what it calls a “substitute aggregated result for each country.”

This is calculated based on the results of other countries with similar voting records. These voting records correspond to the “pots” that the EBU devised for the semi-final allocation draw. As you can see below, Montenegro’s vote was based on how Albania, Croatia, North Macedonia, Serbia and Slovenia voted. 

Pot 1

  • Albania
  • Croatia
  • Montenegro
  • North Macedonia
  • Serbia
  • Slovenia

Pot 3

  • Armenia
  • Azerbaijan
  • Georgia
  • Israel
  • Russia
  • Ukraine

Pot 4

  • Cyprus
  • Greece
  • Malta
  • Bulgaria
  • Portugal
  • San Marino

Pot 5

  • Estonia
  • Lithuania
  • Latvia
  • Moldova
  • Poland
  • Romania

What do you think of all this? Could a lot of the confusion have been cleared up if the EBU released more specific information from the start? Let us know what you’re thinking down below.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
401 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ThorBeta
ThorBeta
1 month ago

PS. Apologies if I have been a bit too harsh with you in my previous comments. I’m not either with EBU’s or TVR’s side, because both sides have things to hide. I just want to avoid misinformation and TVR hasn’t been very helpful to that direction – on the contrary – so you supporting them with such passion triggered me really badly, lol.

ThorBeta
ThorBeta
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

That was a reply to ThaGi btw, whose comments have now been removed from the discussion unfortunately…

ThorBeta
ThorBeta
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

Nobody is perfect haha. I’m a bit too argumentative sometimes, and I know that I’m not entirely right either. Cheers 🙂

Oetam
1 month ago

Well, I think RTCG and others should send their concerns to Spain not to EBU. The thing that concerns me is that Chanel has sth to do with this votes, because she cleraly satated: “nunca secondary”.

Andrei
Andrei
1 month ago

WHAT are you people even talking about?
Millions upon millions were placed on bets on the winner, or the ranking and EBU change at least the top 3 by choosing to replace the votes with whatever they seemed correct. NO NO NO, you cancel the votes from the six countries. You don’t get to give points to whomever you chose.

Garbo
Garbo
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrei

What are YOU talking about? You can’t just cancel their votes. Some of those six countries were in the grand final. If you cancel their votes it benefits them, because they don’t give out any points, but they can still receive votes. What kind of punishment is that?

Andrei
Andrei
1 month ago
Reply to  Garbo

This isn’t about punishment of the six, but about the correctness of the results. Again, there was a lot of money involved. They can’t just influence the results by giving points according to their agenda, claiming they’ve used an ‘agregate’ of what those countries would have voted. The punishment, IF there’s valid proof that they’ve done something should have come after the semifinal 2 by disqualifying them to enter the final. You let them go in the final, cancel their voting and at the end disqualify them. What EBU has done by changing the votes and trying to make the… Read more »

ThorBeta
ThorBeta
1 month ago

I’m so glad that EBU is FINALLY scrutinising the jury votes. It was about time. I’m also glad that they didn’t alert the broadcasters beforehand, so they would avoid to be caught on the act. I can see that this is the first step in reforming the juries and I can see 2 ways forward. The first is to expand the expert juries to 15-20 members per country: this seems like a very expensive and probably financially unsustainable option for many broadcasters. Second is to replace the juries of professionals with demoscopic juries, and add a Pan-European jury of music… Read more »

Satsuma
Satsuma
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

What did ebu is criminal….

Rafu
Rafu
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

EBU just REPLACED the national jury votes. But hey, then WHY bother to ask for votes from a national jury. eh? Shouldn’s it be better if there would be a “beyond all doubts” european jury to do this? Infact, EBU it’s just that.Yep, they just did it WITHOUT previous statement. Welcome to EV hijacking… by EBU.

ThorBeta
ThorBeta
1 month ago
Reply to  Rafu

No. EBU didn’t replace the votes. They cancelled the juries according to their rules allowing to cancel juries when certain irregularities are identified. Those irregularities were found in the semifinal results that nobody has seen, but both EBU and the involved broadcasters know. There were no valid juries from those broadcasters anymore to vote for the final. They could have announced that earlier but I guess they a. needed enough evidence, b. didn’t want to create fuss before the actual final. Simple as that.

ThorBeta
ThorBeta
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

Yes, the 6 juries in question have been removed from the eurovision.tv website:
https://eurovision.tv/event/turin-2022/grand-final/jury

They have been substituted by aggregate votes per EBU rules. Exactly the same thing happened when the Belarusian jury was cancelled in 2019 because they revealed their voting before the final.

ThorBeta
ThorBeta
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

Of course they cancelled the jury that was selected by the TVR, since they cancelled all the members of the respective juries. Do you need a statement with the names of the cancelled jurors? Ask EBU to make another statement that Ovi and Paula Seling and the rest were cancelled from being jurors. They never claimed that the jury has voted lol. How did you come to this conclusion? Each broadcaster announces a set of points that they contribute to the expert jury voting. According to the EBU rules (see the Belarus 2019 case) if ALL members of a jury… Read more »

Satsuma
Satsuma
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

yes but clearly it was unfair. Deleted those jury was the best decision in my opinion

Satsuma
Satsuma
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

and those irregularities clearly was the reason spain was 3rd and not 2nd, not a big deal, buit I mean, whu not just cancel the votes…

Satsuma
Satsuma
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

exactly

ThorBeta
ThorBeta
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

So what? They have been cancelled by EBU because of their semifinal voting, which they refuse to reveal.

ThorBeta
ThorBeta
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

Really? The EBU reports that they noticed irregular results in the semifinals and for that reason they cancelled the jury votes altogether and that’s not important for them? Like what, just pretend they never read the statement? Lol. TVR sounds like a complete joke.

ThorBeta
ThorBeta
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

Did I even talk about any “accusations”? Lol. The only accusation I see is from TVR complaining that EBU “replaced” their jury votes. EBU has already explained that they cancelled specific juries due to voting irregularities in the SEMIFINAL and substituted their vote both in the semifinal and the final with aggregate votes per the competition rules. TVR has agreed to that rules prior to the contest – that’s their problem, not mine. So what are you even talking about? The JURY THAT TVR SELECTED WAS CANCELLED. No accusations or anything. Simply cancelled. They can’t go live and present the… Read more »

ThorBeta
ThorBeta
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

Both EBU and TVR need to do that imho and they are both not announcing the cancelled semifinal votes for their own reasons each. I expect that EBU will eventually do that – they are always slow when it comes to official statements. You’re right in another thing, the Romanian jurors did what they were expected to do indeed – I want to hear from the EBU as well why they didn’t announce their decision to cancel those juries earlier and before they voted for the final. TVR on the other hand is preferentially presenting only their jury results in… Read more »

ThorBeta
ThorBeta
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

I think you are a lawyer or studying law or something, so I understand now why you are so obsessed with legal proceedings lol. You should have studied the rules and regulations in much more detail before you made the decision to start defending TVR in here like it’s a courtroom haha. I think it’s not really important if TVR wins a lawsuit for not being informed in time about EBU’s decisions, being shocked, etc, since they don’t really stand a chance to win a case in regards to their essence of the claims, which is that EBU was unfair… Read more »

Satsuma
Satsuma
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

Stop saying cancelled they did not cancel anyone, they replaced it

ThorBeta
ThorBeta
1 month ago
Reply to  Satsuma

No they didn’t replace it. They cancelled it and substituted it with an aggregate vote according to the rules. That’s what the statement from EBU says.

stefus
stefus
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

Well said. And all this crap about Spain would have come second when we don’t even know what their votes would have been. The ones Romania released how do we know they really were the ones. Also funny how they are not releasing the semi final ones. I’m glad EBU took the action they did. And the rules stated what would happen if juries were caught or suspected of foul play.

Satsuma
Satsuma
1 month ago
Reply to  stefus

no its not crap i know its painful for you, but the official romanian jury show their votes and uk had zero points but Spain just like azerbaijan gave zero to uk EBU gave them 12. spain lost by 7, do the math. From those 6 countries with their rules, 2 of them were identical with 12 points to the uk included Azerbaijan replacement votes. Top 3 is already great but clearly Spain was robbed of her 2nd place, just fact

stefus
stefus
1 month ago
Reply to  Satsuma

There were five other juries, Spain could have got 0 in these for all we know. Spain was 3rd end of.

Pablo
Pablo
1 month ago

And also no one said that “poor countries tried to buy points” (this is also not what happened). They said that the 6 juries colluded to rank their respective songs high so that they qualify. It doesn’t cost any money, all it takes is “I rank your song high if you also rank my song high”.

Pablo
Pablo
1 month ago

It’s not “the year they decided to investigate neighboring votes” (that is not what happened this year). They check how juries vote every year to detect signs of collusion. Also no one said it’s shady for Romania to give points to Moldova, but it is indeed shady when 5 jurors have weirdly similar voting patterns (which is what they investigated here). I do not buy that they would have dismissed juries of 6 countries (that’s like 15% of participants) if they were not sure there was something wrong. They would not create such a scandal for no reason… also I… Read more »

Pablo
Pablo
1 month ago

Let’s not forget who the real criminals are here… It’s not the EBU, it’s the corrupt juries and TV channels from these 6 countries. I guess the EBU wanted to minimize the scandal, and avoid saying on live television « So Romania/Poland/Azerbaijan/etc. cheated so I will announce the votes instead ». Also if I remember correctly they never specifically said that there were connections issues (would need to rewatch the final to be sure).

Pablo
Pablo
1 month ago
Reply to  Pablo

You’re just copy-pasting the same bs under every comment (and in this case you’re not even answering something I said, your answer makes no sense).

Rafu
Rafu
1 month ago
Reply to  Pablo

Yes, because this truth must be told.

stefus
stefus
1 month ago
Reply to  Pablo

That applies in a court of law which I’m sure after EBU investigation if any crime has took place they can refer to the relevant authorities. EBU will have their evidence and has made the right decision and is right taking this line as some countries really take the mick and cheating really undermines the whole contest. Anyway get a grip, the results stand and let’s hope the countries caught will not return.

stefus
stefus
1 month ago
Reply to  Pablo

It’s not a legal court case ffs. How do you know that EBU hasn’t got such evidence, they released a statement thst voting irregularities were discovered, as it’s an investigation they are not going to leak this to the media. It’s between EBU and the broadcasters. I think these individual broadcasters are being very selective in what they are sharing. Only releasing their final results which how do we know are real. EBU is not going to say publicly and I’m sure there is more going on than what they are telling us.

Pablo
Pablo
1 month ago

Basically these 6 countries colluded during SF2 to vote for each other and qualify, which is why they were punished during the final. A lot of fans were dishing Switzerland or Belgium for qualifying, but at least they qualified fair and square (Belgium even placed 10th in the SF2 televote so they would have qualified regardless of juries). Contrary to Romania, Poland and Azerbaijan who felt the need to cheat… I hope they get excluded for at least 5 years.

ThorBeta
ThorBeta
1 month ago
Reply to  Pablo

It’s something that has happened so many times before and EBU has been looking the other way. San Marino and Poland last year was one of the most obvious cases, but it has happened so many times that it’s disgusting that they have tolerated is so many years. It’s not even about bribing- it’s more like “I’ll vote for you and you’ll vote for me” situation and it’s usually identified by the pattern of most or all jury members placing a certain song very high, in discordance to other juries, which usually is very suspicious. Of course there is always… Read more »

Pablo
Pablo
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

Yeah, we are in complete agreement.

Pablo
Pablo
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

lol… There’s no need for a trial here. All countries agree to the rules before the contests, and I’m pretty sure that the rules must say something like “If we can’t use your televote or jury vote, or if we find irregularities, we will use an aggregate instead” and “Your jury votes will be audited for irregular patterns”. Again I am CERTAIN they would have never decided to discard votes from 6 countries (15% of participants) without solid ground.

Rafu
Rafu
1 month ago
Reply to  Pablo

The trial is on its way. 6 countries are suing EBU.

stefus
stefus
1 month ago
Reply to  Rafu

How can they, the rules clearly state that in event of voting irregularities even suspected they can do what they did. If they want to waste money go ahead. But I want to see EBU taking action by banning these countries.

Rafu
Rafu
1 month ago
Reply to  stefus

You will see. The money is not important now. Credibility of EBU, is. Stay tuned. Interesting times ahead!

Pablo
Pablo
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

And as ThorBeta said, how weird that they’re all releasing their final votes instead of releasing their SF2 votes. If they’re so sure they didn’t do anything wrong, go ahead and disclose your SF2 details and show us how corrupt you are. I’m waiting.

stefus
stefus
1 month ago
Reply to  Pablo

i only see tumbleweed lol

Midnight Gold
Midnight Gold
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

As someone who knows TVR and the kind of shameless, shady BS they can be up to, 100% confirms they are guilty and should be shown no mercy by mister Osterdahl.

ThorBeta
ThorBeta
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

Dear the prosecutor in the case is TVR not EBU. EBU didn’t accuse anyone of anything. TVR is accusing EBU of injust treatment and providing no evidence to support their claim.

ThorBeta
ThorBeta
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

When and where did they accuse them of manipulating the votes? Please show me. Also the rules already in place allow EBU to discredit juries if there are irregular voting patterns. They don’t need evidence of ‘bribing’ or ‘manipulating’ or anything and they haven’t changed any rules. TVR knew that already. Finally they haven’t changed the Romanian jury votes, simply because they kicked out the Romanian jury altogether. There’s Romanian jury for EBU this year if you look into the website, null, zero, nada. I want the TVR to provide the full votes of their “jury” both in the semifinal… Read more »

ThorBeta
ThorBeta
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

*no Romanian jury

Rafu
Rafu
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

On the official letter sent by email to Romanian jury, the EBU said just that.

ThorBeta
ThorBeta
1 month ago
Reply to  Rafu

Link please.

Rafu
Rafu
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

Google it, please.

ThorBeta
ThorBeta
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

I know the statement dear. There’s no direct accusation of manipulating the votes. The votes were removed because there were “irregular voting patterns identified”. Period. Regarding the rules: you cannot accuse someone of changing the rules if you don’t know them in the first place. It’s like watching a football game and accusing the referee that he wrongly called an offside when you have no idea what an offside is… If the broadcasters have something to say because EBU didn’t follow the rules they have to directly respond to the EBU statement which says that there were “irregular voting patterns”… Read more »

ThorBeta
ThorBeta
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

Still there is no direct accusation. You can interpret it as “implied” but then the last sentence is a very general statement. Definitely no direct accusation.

And rules are rules and TVR knew the rules beforehand. And no I’m not talking about the rules of English language. I’m sorry but it’s TVR that thinks we are stupid, pretending they didn’t know the rules of a competition they are taking part in. If the didn’t think we are stupid they would have announced their SEMIFINAL votes that are considered irregular according to the rules.

ThorBeta
ThorBeta
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

Can you also please be more specific when you say that TVR accuses EBU (finally you admitted that TVR is the prosecutor lol) of changing some rules? What rules? I need to know. We need to know, otherwise they are false accusations.

stefus
stefus
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

The rules have been in place since 2016, a few years back Belarus votes were banned and treated the same way but EBU did make a mistake by giving the points to the bottom 10 countries which they put right. The rules were known it’s not like they just did this for the first time.

Satsuma
Satsuma
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

So why not delete the votes instead of giving scores and clearly help more country then others. I’m french but clearly, Spain lost her second place cause of it

ThorBeta
ThorBeta
1 month ago
Reply to  Satsuma

There are rules that EBU has to provide a substitute aggregate vote instead when a jury is cancelled. These rules have been implemented before: see what happened with the Belarusian jury in 2019. They cannot just delete the votes because the rules say differently.

Halblenstein
Halblenstein
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

Well, it is. Indeed better to cancel these points. Would be fair.

Satsuma
Satsuma
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

I understand but the rule is stupid….

Satsuma
Satsuma
1 month ago
Reply to  ThorBeta

Thank God Ukraine won it, cause i can’t imagine if those would have been the decisive moment between Spain and The Uk lol

stefus
stefus
1 month ago
Reply to  Satsuma

How do you know that? Not all of the countries released their full votes, and how do we know these are legit. The result stands, get over it. There’s more important things going on in the world.

DomiNets5
DomiNets5
1 month ago

So, in a nutshell, this means Sam didn’t get “12 points” from some jurors (amongst other game-changing facts)…smh. Don’t know why they had to drag many countries into that shambolic scandal. ;(

Hasta la vista, Eurovision 2022!

Camilla
1 month ago
Reply to  DomiNets5

I think it doesn’t make any difference for UK and Ukraine as they would have the same placements. The countries that gave UK 12 points were France, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Ukraine and Czech Republic who are not accused of anything and Azerbadsjan who would in their real vote have given their 12 points to Ukraine. However, Romania gave their 12 points to Ukraine who would have given them to Moldova so Ukraine didn’t lose any 12. Romania and Poland would also have given UK high score. So I think it Evens out in the top, however Moldova was robbed of… Read more »

Satsuma
Satsuma
1 month ago
Reply to  Camilla

No you are so wrong….Romania jury gave 0 points to the uk but 1 to spain. Ebu changed it and gave 8 to the uk and 0 to spain. Azerbaijan jury gave 0 to the uk but ebu gave them 12 pts….
Spain lost by 7 her 2nd place. Clearly Spain should have finished 2nd…Anyway top 3 is great tho

Rafu
Rafu
1 month ago
Reply to  Camilla

Upon this huge scandal, the credibility of EBU is plummeting. One can ask if the “televoting” was really real… From now on, anything is possible with EBU. Since they REPLACED national jury votes with their own “aggregated” votes on a form in a computer, to does not seem impossible to replace the real televoting with EBU “aggregated” results. This is what it is. THEFT.

DomiNets5
DomiNets5
1 month ago
Reply to  Camilla

I didn’t mention the “game-changing” facts, because other users had already elaborated on them. Anyway, it just peeves me that they had to modify points for X reason when said votes don’t represent each broadcaster’s preferences smh.

Satsuma
Satsuma
1 month ago
Reply to  Camilla

Are you kidding me camilla??? Azerbijan and Georgia 2 of the members of the voting scandal saw their votes replaced by EBU who gave 12 points to the uk…Azerbaijan said that they gave 12 to Ukraine not the Uk. Romania jury at the first place gave zero points to the uk but EBU changed that and gave them 8…. Clearly the Uk were the big winners of that fraud.

ThorBeta
ThorBeta
1 month ago
Reply to  Satsuma

The votes were cancelled and substituted with an aggregate result from the countries in the same pot. Azerbaijan and Georgia are in the same pot with Armenia, Israel and Ukraine and the highest ranked song among the 3 was the UK. All votes from Azerbaijan and Georgia are the same because they are the aggregate result of the same pot 3.

Alex
Alex
1 month ago

Eurovision 2022 has been a complete disaster. I would say Eurovision 2023 can’t get any worse….but I would be lying.

Halblenstein
Halblenstein
1 month ago
Reply to  Alex

Agree

Elle
Elle
1 month ago

This year’s edition of Eurovision has been very messy. Threats to the artists during the NF season, technical problems with the stage and the production and now this ?

rchippett
rchippett
1 month ago

I see both sides of the story here. I think there must be a good reason why the EBU has removed these 6 votes. I think it is a good thing that it has been looked in to. However, it is really suspicious that there are no details yet. I think the EBU has to stand by their decision now and should not change the results as this will be going back on a decision they specifically made and announced on the night. It is like a referee making a decision in a football match (right or wrong) they have… Read more »

Jack
Jack
1 month ago

If there is a real irregularity it should be punished according the rules not only for aggregate results. Which is the best thing ebu could do.

Ugnius
Ugnius
1 month ago

The supervisor didn’t said anything about connection problems. The hosts did. Maybe they simply didn’t know whole situation.

Osterdahl just said ‘there are problems with voting’ or smth like that. He hasn’t said anything about problems with *connection*

Whisker
Whisker
1 month ago
Reply to  Ugnius

There was plenty of time for them to prepare for such a novel ESC moment and MO should have just given the points.

Martin
Martin
1 month ago

At first I didn’t understand why in the live broadcast they could not connect with the spokespersons and the points were immediately delivered by M.O…. In the past years, when there were connections problems, the presenters said “OK, we will try again later…” …
Also, I don’t know what to think about this enormous televoting points for Ukraine.

Whisker
Whisker
1 month ago

I don’t think it was about Romania giving 12 points to Moldova. As I see it, EBU removed all the points because they must have suspected point swapping as per the situation in SF2, in the GF as well. It wasn’t about the 12 points, it was about the whole set of points. And this applies to all five or six other broadcasters.

Whisker
Whisker
1 month ago

No it’s not OK. He should have said “X’s 12pts go to Y” and deal with the issue after the show.

Jonas
Jonas
1 month ago

I’m worried that Azerbaijan are completely immune to this system anyway. Even if cheating is found and votes cancelled, the computers will still give them votes because of the thirteen years of uncaught cheating. There is not one normal year.

Jonas
Jonas
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonas

This is probably how the did so well in the jury this year. The system just saw this as normal, and it slipped through. Sad.

Whisker
Whisker
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonas

Excellent observations!

Jofty
Jofty
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonas

So you are conveniently overlooking the Swedish jury semi result with an inferior song. Needs investigation. Very sad.

Jonas
Jonas
1 month ago
Reply to  Jofty

I’m not conveniently overlooking anything.

Anoni
Anoni
1 month ago

The situation is messy. The statement issues on the day of the grand-final was regarding semi-final 2 votes. Why was it issued so late and why does it seem that the broadacasters didn’t even know all of that was happening. It seems that one side is lying but which side is it? If we follow the EBU’s statement and action, it makes some sense. The 6 countries tried to give each other votes in the semi-final but were caught and then punished by taking away their voting rights. This can explain why they had completely different from the expected votes… Read more »

Jofty
Jofty
1 month ago
Reply to  Anoni

Not an illogical conclusion that there was a “push” for UK to finish second

Camilla
1 month ago

I just don’t understand why Poland and Romania would be suspicious, particularly together. It would be like Poland going “Hey Romania how about we exchange votes, I’ll give you 2 if you give me nothing!” And Romania will be like: “Hell ya -it’s risky but it will totally be worth it!”. I don’t believe EBU would rig votes either, come on, I think there had just been cases og fraud in the cast so they are high alert this year and reacting at anything looking the sligthest unusual.

Ugnius
Ugnius
1 month ago
Reply to  Camilla

I think Poland had illegal vote exchanges with San Marino, not with Romania. I mean, last year San Marinese jury gave 12 points to The Ride (in SF), while Polish jury gave its’ 12 points to Adrenalina

So maybe something simmilar happened this year, so EBU discovered the pattern decided to cancel their votes

Jonas
Jonas
1 month ago

It’s okay not to like the people in charge now, but you don’t need to give up on the whole contest. Just like if you don’t like the president or prime minister, you don’t need to give up on your country. Run for office yourself and try to change things.

Jonas
Jonas
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonas

Ten years from now, our presenters at Mariupol 2032 might be saying “… and now we go over to our executive supervisor, Aria…” and you’ll be telling us we are good to go.

Jonas
Jonas
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonas

Only if you agree to keep the juries.

Jonas
Jonas
1 month ago

I think you mean the stage manager, Henrik von Zweickbergk. He marched on at the end of Kyiv 2017 and told Salvador what to do with the trophy and where to put the Portuguese flag. People might remember him from that.

He still asks about you, by the way.

Whisker
Whisker
1 month ago

I also think it’s a waste of money and won’t be voting anymore. I now consider ESC a full-of-deceit show and a charade, mostly. That’s what happens when people in the know choose to ignore things.

Whisker
Whisker
1 month ago
Reply to  Whisker

They were right! And if anyone had any doubt, this is the reality check, ice shower etc. It’s such a terribly disappointing, shameful AND shameless, and disgraceful situation.

El Tigre
El Tigre
1 month ago

No clear statement and transparency from EBU is a statement. Pitty! Accusing your members of fraud and not providing any proof. Next year it can be other 6 countries or more. Pitty indeed. I’m not really sure ESC will have in near future nowhere near 40 participants. This edition specially was cruel. Shading Brooke, Konstrakta, Rosa Linn among the others, for the ridiculous things (gay bar name, shape of the tables, standing far or near Ukrainian flag on Israel Calling pre party event). It’s a bit too much to swallow. EBU in near future will have much to solve and… Read more »

Raisa
Raisa
1 month ago

According a Romanian juror there are more countries whose votes were changed by EBU. So let’s show some understanding for EBU needing time to fabricate some explanation. 🙂

Lex
Lex
1 month ago

This is not about changing the results, this is about the credibility and transparenty of the competition. You can’t invalidate the votes of 6 countries without evidences, and so far EBU proved nothing. And also, you can’t replace the results of one country with other results that don’t make sense (for example, Romania, this country would never vote the way EBU said with their system).

Una
Una
1 month ago
Reply to  Lex

EBU has released an official statement yet none of the broadcasters in question provided anything that we know of to contradict the issues raised about the jury vote of SF2. The voting of GF is a direct consequence of the issues in SF2.

Why don’t the broadcasters clear things up? The longer they wait, they shaddier things look for them.

Lex
Lex
1 month ago
Reply to  Una

They don’t have to prove their innocence, the one accusing has to prove they’re guilty. If all what we have is words (and right now that’s all), it’s one person’s word against another’s, which shouldn’t be enough to take action.

Una
Una
1 month ago
Reply to  Lex

Really?? Should any of the broadcasters in question feel wronged by EBU, they would have everything to *gain* by providing the score sheets from their SF2. Easy peasy. Clear things up. Short and sweet.

However they all seem to talk about their douze points in the GF and totally avoid the issue of their jury vote of Wednesday.

Lex
Lex
1 month ago
Reply to  Una

Of course. If EBU says they’re guilty and those countries say they’re innocent, EBU is the one that has to prove their point.
And even if we accept the idea of those countries proving their innocence, EBU didn’t give them the change to do that: they decided to hide that reality and change the results without letting them know.
The one being shady and lying so far is the EBU, not the affected countries.

Una
Una
1 month ago
Reply to  Lex

EBU talked about “irregular voting patterns” among six countries. No names. No one was mentioned to be “guilty” in the official communication.

The fact that EBU have not made public (that we know of) the official results, it does not mean they are not right.

North Macedonia finished 11th and Cyprus 12th. Could either or both have missed on the qualification because of those “patterns”??

Sova
1 month ago

The actual results might even change the outcome of the semifinal 2. Cause the fake aggregated algorithm results brought 72p to SWEDEN out of 222 points. I am sure at least 12p from Montenegro would go to Serbia. EBU contributed all 6 countries voted for Sweden with 12p. 60p to Australia out of 169p jury points (all six voted Australia 10p) 41p to Estonia out of 113p 36p to Czech r out of 102p 35p to Belgium out of 105p 27p to Poland out of 84p 23p to Finland out of 63 jury points and so on… Azerbaijan 15p, Serbia… Read more »

Sova
1 month ago
Reply to  Sova

IN FINAL
the fake points were
53p to UK
48p to Sweden
44p to Ukraine (12p out of this 44 would be equal to real results from Poland)
41p to Italy
32p to Spain
32p to Portugal
20p to Greece
18p to Australia
and so on… 17p to Netherlands…

the winner would be the same, but I am sure second place would be Spain.

The bigger the changes in the results the less chances EBU will admit their faults. Even if those 6 countries made mistake, they made bigger mistake. (another topic to explain this)

Dolly
Dolly
1 month ago
Reply to  Sova

And so what

Satsuma
Satsuma
1 month ago
Reply to  Dolly

so what? joker

Arby
Arby
1 month ago

ok boomer

Dolly
Dolly
1 month ago

Suspend the countries for 2 years who have been involved . Eurovision was better when we only had 24 countries in total back in the day

Emilio
Emilio
1 month ago
Reply to  Dolly

Lmao

esc1234
esc1234
1 month ago
Reply to  Dolly

Who do you think you are?

Pablo
Pablo
1 month ago
Reply to  Dolly

Suspend the EBU for what? For catching cheaters and punishing them?

Satsuma
Satsuma
1 month ago
Reply to  Dolly

this kid is funny, probably british

Pekto
Pekto
1 month ago

Guys, I think it’s definitely understandable to be angry at EBU for not being transparent over this decision (especially since it’s been two days and we haven’t heard anything else from them), but it’s ridiculous to assume that they did this because they wanted to favor Sweden, UK, etc, or because they hate “the east”. Österdahl didn’t just look at the results himself, and was like: “Yup, looks corrupt to me!”, they definitely did some statistical analyses that clearly showed irregularities, otherwise they wouldn’t have gone through the whole thing.

ete sech
ete sech
1 month ago
Reply to  Pekto

If that was the case they should’ve at least said something about it at this point

3art
3art
1 month ago

Polish TV now also made a statement. Revealing who their judges were and stating that they ask EBU for clarification and transparency as they don’t agree with the accusations. I guess they were ok with the spokesperson delivering the votes as their 12 points would have gone to Ukraine anyway. https://jastrzabpost.pl/newsy/eurowizja-2022-tvp-oswiadczenie-ws-punktow-polskiego-jury_1192225.html

Whisker
Whisker
1 month ago
Reply to  3art

Interesting! Among other things the Google translation of the article says that “The unpleasant situation happened during the semi-finals. The organizers’ co-workers who monitored the jury’s work noticed then that ‘the work was not working properly’. The alarm was raised by the Belgian VRT television, which drew the attention of the EBU to the fact that judges from six countries were to contact each other in order to reward each other with preferential notes during the vote.” and “First, Polish viewers were outraged by the lack of points from the Ukrainian jury. The local team assures that they voted for… Read more »

Opinion
Opinion
1 month ago

The results of the audience voting are already very unbelievable, it is even easier to falsify the audience voting.

Una
Una
1 month ago

AzerBUYjan’s 0 televote points of 2022 are bafffling considering their split results – points received – in their semi-final historically:

2016
jury 92 – televote 93 (nearly same points)
2017
jury 87 – televote 63
2018
jury 47 – televote 47 (same points)
2019
jury 103 – televote 221 (televote almost double the jury)
2021
jury 47 – televote 91 (televote almost double the jury)

Can anyone explain the 0 televote points of 2022?

Doris
Doris
1 month ago
Reply to  Una

Boring song like Switzerland.

Una
Una
1 month ago
Reply to  Doris

I disagree. Switzerland had Marius’ amazing performance, a meaningful song and gorgeous staging.

Those “0 points” are the most undeserved score in the history of Eurovision.

Jonas
Jonas
1 month ago
Reply to  Una

I think that was Jeangu last year.

Sir Stevia
Sir Stevia
1 month ago
Reply to  Una

Azerbaijan’s song is poorly written, produced and staged. The only decent thing about it was Nadir’s vocal.
It should not come as a surprise that Azerbaijan got 0 televotes. There is not much to vote for here…

Halblenstein
Halblenstein
1 month ago
Reply to  Sir Stevia

His voice is unpolished. Looks like ge never had vocal training. I found his singing hideous especially these roarings bah. Horrible.

random russian guy
random russian guy
1 month ago

WHAT WE KNOW A single jury member makes too much influence. As far as I remember in 2016 one of the jurors of Danish broadcaster messed up the logic of evaluation (sorted in ascending order rather than descending) which caused changes in the scoreboard. In 2019 Poland didn’t advance to the final because of 1 (one!) jury member’s reversed points. We need more jury members from each country. We already have a lot of statistics and can calculate the number needed to decrease the influence of a single juror. Jury members appointed by broadcasters are very often from the same… Read more »

Lorena
Lorena
1 month ago

What about juries giving 12 points to Ukraine because “we are with you”? I mean, I perfectly understand the huge televoting and people voting in solidarity. I am even proud of Europeans for that. But a jury should focus on the musical aspects.

random russian guy
random russian guy
1 month ago
Reply to  Lorena

Juries are people like us 🙂

Lorena
Lorena
1 month ago

So what’s the point in having juries then?

Anhel
Anhel
1 month ago
Reply to  Lorena

Used to be to combat countries voting for their neighbors and immigrants voting for their countries; there is no longer a point.

Jonas
Jonas
1 month ago
Reply to  Lorena

The point is for juries to vote on quality, and the televote to vote on popularity.

Anna Annita
Anna Annita
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonas

Mmm…not bad Jonas.

Lorena
Lorena
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonas

Yes, I mean what’s the point if they don’t do so.

Halblenstein
Halblenstein
1 month ago
Reply to  Lorena

You are proud of massive unprecedented brainwashing?

Whisker
Whisker
1 month ago

100%

Iv***
Iv***
1 month ago

I guess the issue might be that the countries in question gave to little or no points to the EBU beloved Sweden so the “neutral” SVT rooted Mr Österdahl had to intervene.

Jack
Jack
1 month ago

Azerbaijan has issued an announcement saying that they sent the results where they gave 12 points to ukraine and ebu without an explanation asked them to give the points somewhere else. When they said no, they informed them that their results from the second semi final and the final will be disqualified.

Well, the “corrupt east” is exposing the “ethical” northern countries. Good luck on explaining this, EBU.

Arby
Arby
1 month ago
Reply to  Jack

You’re believing the Azeri broadcaster on this one? Bahahahahahaha

Lex
Lex
1 month ago
Reply to  Arby

I believe them more than the EBU. At least Azerbaijan didn’t lie to us in our faces in order to change the votes of another country, EBU can’t say the same.

stefus
stefus
1 month ago
Reply to  Lex

Pmsl you believe Azerbaijan over EBU.

ete sech
ete sech
1 month ago
Reply to  Lex

Pls someone kick the Swedes out of EBU so the org regains some credibility!

Halblenstein
Halblenstein
1 month ago
Reply to  Lex

Lol oke ?

Writckut
Writckut
1 month ago

More than 48 hours later and EBU does not clarify anything or provide evidence. This sucks.?

Camilla
1 month ago

I think sometimes similar voting patterns between countries just happen by coincidence and not because they are rigged. It turned out Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Lithuania gave almost identical points to eachother. I seriously doubt Iceland and Lithuania would have a corrupt deal going on ? I think the Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, Estonia) and the Baltica (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) share taste. Also Denmark and Norway and Denmark both gave Greece 12 points instead of Sweden, I think the Greek ballad this year had a more dark Nordic tone to it than usual for Greece. (And… Read more »

Max
Max
1 month ago
Reply to  Camilla

As it has been said here many times here – similar televoting pattern is more cultural thing rather than ‘corruption’ or ‘neighbor support’. Up here in the North of Europe tunes from Caucasus or Balkans sometimes sound so different to ones you are used to that you simply don’t get it – what the whole hype about. The same about performance. Half-naked ladies in sequins bumping around stage and shaking hair looks so 80-ties disco and you simply don’t get it again. And I suppose the same goes geographically vice versa.

dygh
dygh
1 month ago

Just tell us, Martin. If not, YOU are good to go.

Oy oy
Oy oy
1 month ago

Let’s just hope this gives the cheaters a lesson: they have gotten much more negative publicity than they would have jumping some places up the scoreboard or qualifying for the final. What about sending better songs in the first place? Then you don’t need to cheat to have a acceptable result in the ESC 🙂

The Voice of Reason
The Voice of Reason
1 month ago

“It’s unforgivable!!!”

Ressay
1 month ago

What can we do about this? Nothing?

Ressay
1 month ago

Maybe for countries like Ireland (7 times winners), Sweden (6 times winner) and Italy (the last winner) this wouldn’t be a big deal, but let’s talk about Spain and The Uk who got zero points and lows califiquation in past event to be 2nd or 3rd is a huge deal. UK got the second place obviously they cant reach number 1 because the televote but this year Spain with Chanel throw all the money on to be in a good place. The second place has to be clarify. If Sweden would came at 2nd place I dont think MO would… Read more »

stefus
stefus
1 month ago
Reply to  Ressay

How you know that corruption hasn’t been proved. They are following the same rules and did the same with Belarus in 2016. I don’t understand why people are making such a fuss.

Yoy
Yoy
1 month ago

I don’t believe any of the results for this year. EBU manipulated all the votes! This was all fixed from the start.

MPsci
MPsci
1 month ago

Jesus, can we just stop with stupid jury voting?

stefus
stefus
1 month ago
Reply to  MPsci

The jury vote was less biased so why would they. Look at the televote this year. To be honest I prefer the juries.

Yeah yeah fire
Yeah yeah fire
1 month ago

I don’t understand why it wasn’t shady that Serbia gave their 12 points to Azerbaijan as well.
They have no friendly relations, the song wasn’t that good (televote confimed). If the juries weren’t bribed I assume they didn’t want to give their 12 points to a competitor who had more chances of winning. The rest of the points dodged a lot of favorites as well.

Nanne
Nanne
1 month ago
Reply to  Yeah yeah fire

Exactly! And they gave Ukraine 0! Shady af.

Jghtl
1 month ago
Reply to  Yeah yeah fire

They might be having friendly relations without you knowing, lol

Apostolos Papadimitriou
Apostolos Papadimitriou
1 month ago
Reply to  Yeah yeah fire

Yeah, the Greek jury too gave 12 points to Azerbajan, 10 to Poland and 7? or something to Romania. They should investigate that too. (I’m from Greece but I only know one of the members and I don’t trust them)

Also the UK jury gave votes to Azerbajan and Poland, maybe undeserved.

Imho Azerbajan is the country more likely to have done something shady but EBU did not handle it correctly.

Tommy
Tommy
1 month ago
Reply to  Yeah yeah fire

They have friendly relations lol. In Belgrade there is a statue of the f****** president of Azerbaijan in a park…

Halblenstein
Halblenstein
1 month ago
Reply to  Tommy

It’s not about being friends. AzerBUYjian simply reconstructed some park in Belgrade and for that they’ve put that odious sculpture of a KGB dictator – father of current dictator Aliev. So they are buying not only Swedish songs in ESC, but everything and everyone they need.

Sir Stevia
Sir Stevia
1 month ago

I have a feeling we will have less than 40 countries competing next year…call it a hunch…
Maybe like…IDK 37 maybe?

Jghtl
1 month ago
Reply to  Sir Stevia

Maybe even less. I wouldn’t be surprised

Sir Stevia
Sir Stevia
1 month ago
Reply to  Jghtl

If we get to a point where one of the semis or both have 14 acts or less then they should make it so only the top 8 qualify.

CRAIG
CRAIG
1 month ago

To be honest, the contest would be better off without a few of the countries caught up in this.I certainly won’t be sad if they are either withdrawn or suspended.

Mm1994
Mm1994
1 month ago
Reply to  CRAIG

You for real? Who tf cares, this whole contest has become a massive joke, politically based joke.

Im so fab
Im so fab
1 month ago

Azerbuyjan has also made an aggressive announcement towards the EBU. They rigged the voting and have the audacity to complain.

Halblenstein
Halblenstein
1 month ago
Reply to  Im so fab

Hopefully they’ll be banned.

stefus
stefus
1 month ago

funny how they won’t reveal the SF jury votes as this is why they were removed. The grand final results are not the ones being accused of voting irregularities. If there is any mistrust it is with these countries. Let’s hope they withdraw as they won’t be missed.

Ressay
1 month ago
Reply to  stefus

The GF votes were. Romania has told.

Hannah
Hannah
1 month ago
Reply to  Ressay

Both sets of results were removed. Romania hasn’t provided their semi-final results and if they manipulated the votes there then they can’t be trusted.

Frisian esc
Frisian esc
1 month ago
Reply to  Ressay

Tje ebu has already said they meant tje semi final votes.

Jonas
Jonas
1 month ago
Reply to  Frisian esc

There were no final results, the juries did not vote. Only computers.