Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
Moderator: James Robinson
Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
After a series with high and low points, we finally hit a point that we have amazingly not reached in the series thus far. Andy Naylor has a chance to become the first octochamp of the series after nearly two months. The good news is that even if he loses, he'll be the number 1 seed of the series as of right now. Also, if he gets 104 points or more, he'll be part of the 800 club as well. Let's see what happens.
Join Anthony for the recap later.
Join Anthony for the recap later.
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
Is this our Martin Thompson? Didn't read the name fully (tuned in late), but it looks like it.
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:41 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
Uh,oh - it's the old FAINEST controversy again ...
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 12:34 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
A great game to watch and very unlucky on Martin.
At least I can now say I went down to an Octochamp!
At least I can now say I went down to an Octochamp!
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
Perhaps game of the series right there.
First of all, congrats to Andy on becoming an octochamp. Some tough games, including today, but you held through. And secondly, very unlucky to Martin, I think you and Brett were handily his toughest competition, and you definitely could have won a few games in your own right based on what I've seen. Hopefully you get to come back in a few years.
First of all, congrats to Andy on becoming an octochamp. Some tough games, including today, but you held through. And secondly, very unlucky to Martin, I think you and Brett were handily his toughest competition, and you definitely could have won a few games in your own right based on what I've seen. Hopefully you get to come back in a few years.
- Bradley Cates
- Acolyte
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:47 pm
- Location: Southport
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
Cracking game! Andy thoroughly deserved to become an octochamp.
Sfumato soup
-
- Series 66 Champion
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:32 pm
- Location: Blackpool
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
Definitely the game of the series so far. Well played Martin, after a difficult start you did so well to get back in the game and almost pulled off a stunning comeback. Andy's been impressive throughout his run and is fully deserving of being (finally) the first octochamp of the series. He'll be a tough opponent for whoever comes up against him in the finals.
Last numbers: 10x8x7-100+6 = 466
Last numbers: 10x8x7-100+6 = 466
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
Unless stuff got cut out, she just rejected that without any explanation. I tend to think in general that Susie takes the wrong approach to allowing/disallowing words. I think she goes by intuition a lot, when the most important thing is consistent rigorous rules.Phyl Styles wrote:Uh,oh - it's the old FAINEST controversy again ...
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:40 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
That was me indeed. Thought you'd enjoy the match!
Strange, but my worst fears were realised. Coming up against a very strong champion, having a word disallowed and then beaten on a crucial conundrum. I was flabbergasted when FAINEST was disallowed. I'd checked through all the uncommon words I knew though the Oxford on-line dictionary, and I couldn't see why it wouldn't be in. Spotted it after one second then spent the remaining time looking for longer words (and there was one). That really knocked my confidence, which could only explain the appalling misses in the next two word rounds. So 21 points thrown away. True, I did eventually take the lead but I'm quite weak on numbers and the conundrum is a bit of a lottery. Talking of which, immediately after the game finished I thought I should have pressed the buzzer straight away and gambled on spotting it, as it was quite easy.
On the plus side, I solved a tricky (for me, anyway) first numbers round under intense pressure, played a couple of unusual words and gave the champion a real test.
So, a thoroughly enjoyable experience. Just wish I could have had more than one.
Strange, but my worst fears were realised. Coming up against a very strong champion, having a word disallowed and then beaten on a crucial conundrum. I was flabbergasted when FAINEST was disallowed. I'd checked through all the uncommon words I knew though the Oxford on-line dictionary, and I couldn't see why it wouldn't be in. Spotted it after one second then spent the remaining time looking for longer words (and there was one). That really knocked my confidence, which could only explain the appalling misses in the next two word rounds. So 21 points thrown away. True, I did eventually take the lead but I'm quite weak on numbers and the conundrum is a bit of a lottery. Talking of which, immediately after the game finished I thought I should have pressed the buzzer straight away and gambled on spotting it, as it was quite easy.
On the plus side, I solved a tricky (for me, anyway) first numbers round under intense pressure, played a couple of unusual words and gave the champion a real test.
So, a thoroughly enjoyable experience. Just wish I could have had more than one.
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:40 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
There was one game a couple of weeks back when NUMBEST was allowed. That made me groan. Whoever says that?Gavin Chipper wrote:Unless stuff got cut out, she just rejected that without any explanation. I tend to think in general that Susie takes the wrong approach to allowing/disallowing words. I think she goes by intuition a lot, when the most important thing is consistent rigorous rules.Phyl Styles wrote:Uh,oh - it's the old FAINEST controversy again ...
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 12:34 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
As a dentist Martin, I have to say all of my patients...
Out of interest, was there more discussion as to whether it should be allowed or not that missed the cut? There were a couple in my games, and I've begun to find it intriguing the differences between the studio and what we see on screen.
Out of interest, was there more discussion as to whether it should be allowed or not that missed the cut? There were a couple in my games, and I've begun to find it intriguing the differences between the studio and what we see on screen.
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:40 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
I don't think there was.
I did query it later and the reason given was that the rule re one-syllable adjectives is only a general guideline and isn't something that can be applied across the board, and that there was no evidence of the existence of 'fainest'.
I did query it later and the reason given was that the rule re one-syllable adjectives is only a general guideline and isn't something that can be applied across the board, and that there was no evidence of the existence of 'fainest'.
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
Yeah, the (non-) explanation was confusing for the viewer (who gets told at other times that comparatives of one-syllable adjectives are allowed) but infinitely moreso for you sat in the chair, especially it being your first round so the last thing you want to do is start kicking up a fuss about it. You were also visibly rattled by it, which is understandable. I also thought that Andy should have been timed out with that 974 numbers solution, so I was feeling very aggrieved for you at the end Hopefully you'll be able to join the growing number of returning losers...
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
Yeah, the (non-)explanation was confusing for the viewer (who gets told at other times that comparatives of one-syllable adjectives are allowed) but infinitely moreso for you sat in the chair, especially it being your first round so the last thing you want to do is start kicking up a fuss about it. You were also visibly rattled by it, which is understandable. I also thought that Andy should have been timed out with that 974 numbers solution, so I was feeling very aggrieved for you at the end Hopefully you'll be able to join the growing number of returning losers... if you want to, that is. You might want them all to fuck off and die, I dunno.
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
How the fuck did I do that? I remember previewing the post but I didn't even think I'd submitted it, let alone tried to edit it.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
I was going to mention about the numbers and getting timed out but forgot and then got timed out.
But yeah, he was very lucky there.
But yeah, he was very lucky there.
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:40 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
I was almost on the right lines there. I did 10x8x6-7-1 to end up with 472. Just overlooked the 100. That to me is an easier method of finding it than the Rachel Riley calculation.Jack Worsley wrote:Definitely the game of the series so far. Well played Martin, after a difficult start you did so well to get back in the game and almost pulled off a stunning comeback. Andy's been impressive throughout his run and is fully deserving of being (finally) the first octochamp of the series. He'll be a tough opponent for whoever comes up against him in the finals.
Last numbers: 10x8x7-100+6 = 466
- Callum Todd
- Series 69 Champion
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
- Location: Leeds
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
[quote="Martin Thompson"]I thought I should have pressed the buzzer straight away and gambled on spotting it, as it was quite easy.[/quote}
You're not supposed to do that, it's kind of cheating.
You're not supposed to do that, it's kind of cheating.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:40 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
You press the buzzer and then when asked, you give the answer without hesitation. How are you doing anything wrong? It's far worse when someone takes an unduly long time to talk through a numbers calculation. That looks suspicious.
- Callum Todd
- Series 69 Champion
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
- Location: Leeds
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
If you don't have the answer when you press the buzzer, you are buying time to find the answer. Time your opponent doesn't have. You are giving yourself an unfair advantage. You shouldn't press the buzzer until you have the answer.Martin Thompson wrote:You press the buzzer and then when asked, you give the answer without hesitation. How are you doing anything wrong? It's far worse when someone takes an unduly long time to talk through a numbers calculation. That looks suspicious.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:40 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
Surely the rules are you press the buzzer, Nick asks for your answer, and then you provide it without delay?
If you do that, how would anyone know the difference?
If you do that, how would anyone know the difference?
- Callum Todd
- Series 69 Champion
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
- Location: Leeds
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
"How would anyone know the difference?" sounds like you know that it's something wrong and that statement would be used to suggest you're 'getting away with it'. While it isn't specifically stated in the contestant guidelines, as far as I know, I would have thought that it is obvious that any manoeuvre used to buy yourself extra time and deny your opponent their fair share of time is foul play. Also, when e-mails were sent to the Series 69 finalists reminding us of our call times for the finals, we were all told very specifically not to buzz until we had the answer. We were then told this again in person at the studios, so while it may or may not be a written rule, this kind of fair play is certainly not appreciated by the producers.Martin Thompson wrote:Surely the rules are you press the buzzer, Nick asks for your answer, and then you provide it without delay?
If you do that, how would anyone know the difference?
And even if it is strictly allowable, which you could argue by exploiting some gap or loophole in the formal rules, do you deny that it is unfair? Could you honestly win a game by that means without feeling a bit ashamed of yourself?
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
-
- Series 78 Champion
- Posts: 1344
- Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:56 pm
- Location: Dadford, Buckinghamshire
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
I'm pretty sure it actually said just to answer as soon as your name was called, didn't it? I also think you're being a bit OTT with Martin. If he sat there umming and ahhing like a certain one of your opponents, then yeah it's a bit much. But a speculative buzz is just as likely to fuck you over as it is to help, so if someone can make it work - fair play to them.Callum Todd wrote:"How would anyone know the difference?" sounds like you know that it's something wrong and that statement would be used to suggest you're 'getting away with it'. While it isn't specifically stated in the contestant guidelines, as far as I know, I would have thought that it is obvious that any manoeuvre used to buy yourself extra time and deny your opponent their fair share of time is foul play. Also, when e-mails were sent to the Series 69 finalists reminding us of our call times for the finals, we were all told very specifically not to buzz until we had the answer. We were then told this again in person at the studios, so while it may or may not be a written rule, this kind of fair play is certainly not appreciated by the producers.Martin Thompson wrote:Surely the rules are you press the buzzer, Nick asks for your answer, and then you provide it without delay?
If you do that, how would anyone know the difference?
And even if it is strictly allowable, which you could argue by exploiting some gap or loophole in the formal rules, do you deny that it is unfair? Could you honestly win a game by that means without feeling a bit ashamed of yourself?
Possibly the first contestant to accelerate with a mic clipped...
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2041
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
While I completely agree that buzzing before you've decided on your answer is unsportsmanlike, there's no point making a rule you can never enforce. Since it's impossible to know what was going through the contestant's mind when they buzzed, the best you can do when specifying the rules is to say "you must answer immediately as soon as your name is called", and perhaps also "buzzing before deciding on your answer is considered against the spirit of the game" or some such.
- Innis Carson
- Devotee
- Posts: 898
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:24 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
So the act only becomes unethical if it doesn't work? Or if you buy yourself 4/5 seconds of time rather than 2/3? Either way, you're exploiting a shortcoming in the studio logistics to give yourself an advantage in the game, and I definitely think that's against the spirit of the game, and worth trying to stamp out. While it isn't realistically possible to do so completely, as Graeme says, I think there's some room for improvement - surely it must not be too hard to set up some electronics that give a very clear and immediate indication of who buzzed as soon as they do (eliminating the need for Nick to say anything) and tell the contestants beforehand that they must answer as soon as their desk lights up or whatever, with a very strict time limit. Shutting the monitors off after buzzing, and Corby has often suggested, would be a helpful touch too.Zarte Siempre wrote:If he sat there umming and ahhing like a certain one of your opponents, then yeah it's a bit much. But a speculative buzz is just as likely to fuck you over as it is to help, so if someone can make it work - fair play to them.
- Clive Brooker
- Devotee
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
- Location: San Toy
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
I agree with this, but I'm not sure I'd then reach the conclusion that it's the player's responsibility to deal with the problem. All tactics, sportsmanlike or otherwise, are also available to your opponent so why should you be expected to play with one hand behind your back? The studio logistics are pretty much unchanged from the show's inception when things weren't subjected to quite the same scrutiny that they are today.Innis Carson wrote:...you're exploiting a shortcoming in the studio logistics to give yourself an advantage in the game, and I definitely think that's against the spirit of the game, and worth trying to stamp out.
The guidelines also tell you not to argue. I can see why, as it's important that recordings flow naturally wherever possible, but there are occasions, as with R1 on Friday, where the show suffers because a player isn't able to get proper clarification. I think what Martin really needed to do was to call a time-out, and maybe the guidelines should acknowledge that in very rare cases this is permissible, not so much to get a decision reversed but so that the player can properly regain his/her composure and carry on with the game.
- Mark Deeks
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
I don't think playing to the stated rules can be likened to playing with one hand tied behind your back.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2041
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
Every TV game show involving buzzers follows the format: contestant presses buzzer, contestant's name is called, contestant gives answer. Countdown isn't unusual in that respect. Even The Chase, where it's all completely automatic, has a disembodied voice from a computer calling the contestant's name, because that's what's expected. So I'm not convinced by the idea that calling the contestant's name should be done away with and replaced with a light on the desk or something similar, because then Countdown would be the odd one out. The case where a contestant presses the buzzer then pauses waiting for Nick to call their name, because that's what they're used to from every other game show, then gets timed out even though they've got the answer, would happen far more often than the case where a contestant gets caught thinking about the answer after buzzing.
The only change that might be useful, if a change is made at all, is that Nick could be a bit quicker about calling the contestant's name. Try it yourself - watch any conundrum, and as soon as a contestant buzzes, say their name aloud. It shouldn't take more than about a second. I'm not saying this is necessarily Nick's fault - the Team have said on here before that they tell Nick in his earpiece which contestant buzzed, then Nick calls their name, so this is obviously going to introduce a delay. If Nick doesn't have a clear view of the nameplates lighting up from where he's sitting, perhaps the solution is to have something appear on his monitor telling him which contestant buzzed?
The only change that might be useful, if a change is made at all, is that Nick could be a bit quicker about calling the contestant's name. Try it yourself - watch any conundrum, and as soon as a contestant buzzes, say their name aloud. It shouldn't take more than about a second. I'm not saying this is necessarily Nick's fault - the Team have said on here before that they tell Nick in his earpiece which contestant buzzed, then Nick calls their name, so this is obviously going to introduce a delay. If Nick doesn't have a clear view of the nameplates lighting up from where he's sitting, perhaps the solution is to have something appear on his monitor telling him which contestant buzzed?
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
It would cut out time if instead of a buzz, a disembodied voice just said the player's name and they had to answer immediately. Best not to trouble the presenter with this at all. You seemed to hint at this solution, Graeme, but then let it slide out of your thought processes.
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
Oh okay, I've changed my mind now, I'm glad you lost and I hope you don't get invited back againMartin Thompson wrote:Surely the rules are you press the buzzer, Nick asks for your answer, and then you provide it without delay?
If you do that, how would anyone know the difference?
- Mark Deeks
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
If you ever need a minute, they'll give you a minute already.Clive Brooker wrote:I agree with this, but I'm not sure I'd then reach the conclusion that it's the player's responsibility to deal with the problem. All tactics, sportsmanlike or otherwise, are also available to your opponent so why should you be expected to play with one hand behind your back? The studio logistics are pretty much unchanged from the show's inception when things weren't subjected to quite the same scrutiny that they are today.Innis Carson wrote:...you're exploiting a shortcoming in the studio logistics to give yourself an advantage in the game, and I definitely think that's against the spirit of the game, and worth trying to stamp out.
The guidelines also tell you not to argue. I can see why, as it's important that recordings flow naturally wherever possible, but there are occasions, as with R1 on Friday, where the show suffers because a player isn't able to get proper clarification. I think what Martin really needed to do was to call a time-out, and maybe the guidelines should acknowledge that in very rare cases this is permissible, not so much to get a decision reversed but so that the player can properly regain his/her composure and carry on with the game.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
"Guys, guys, I just need a time-out because I just had a seemingly fine word disallowed and I'm not allowed to argue about it, so I need to regain my composure. This isn't me arguing; it's just an explanation."Mark Deeks wrote:If you ever need a minute, they'll give you a minute already.Clive Brooker wrote:I agree with this, but I'm not sure I'd then reach the conclusion that it's the player's responsibility to deal with the problem. All tactics, sportsmanlike or otherwise, are also available to your opponent so why should you be expected to play with one hand behind your back? The studio logistics are pretty much unchanged from the show's inception when things weren't subjected to quite the same scrutiny that they are today.Innis Carson wrote:...you're exploiting a shortcoming in the studio logistics to give yourself an advantage in the game, and I definitely think that's against the spirit of the game, and worth trying to stamp out.
The guidelines also tell you not to argue. I can see why, as it's important that recordings flow naturally wherever possible, but there are occasions, as with R1 on Friday, where the show suffers because a player isn't able to get proper clarification. I think what Martin really needed to do was to call a time-out, and maybe the guidelines should acknowledge that in very rare cases this is permissible, not so much to get a decision reversed but so that the player can properly regain his/her composure and carry on with the game.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
Not everyone has necessarily thought about things to the same detail as everyone on here, so if the guidelines just say you have to give the answer when your name is called, some people might take it at face value. Not everyone engages in moral philosophy for fun, and for some people it might not even have occurred to them that it's unfair. They might just see it as a valid gamble that's part of the game. Obviously Martin has read your posts though, so you might still want to condemn him.Jon Corby wrote:Oh okay, I've changed my mind now, I'm glad you lost and I hope you don't get invited back againMartin Thompson wrote:Surely the rules are you press the buzzer, Nick asks for your answer, and then you provide it without delay?
If you do that, how would anyone know the difference?
But it might be better if the guidelines state that it's at least unsportsmanlike to buzz when you don't have the answer.
-
- Series 78 Champion
- Posts: 1344
- Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:56 pm
- Location: Dadford, Buckinghamshire
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
I think exploitation of flaws in a system has and always will be a part of gameplay.
Am I saying it's "ethical"? No. Am I saying I'D do it? No.
Am I saying it's "ethical"? No. Am I saying I'D do it? No.
Possibly the first contestant to accelerate with a mic clipped...
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
Monitor off on buzzing. No dilly-dallying in getting the answer. Flaw gone.
-
- Series 78 Champion
- Posts: 1344
- Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:56 pm
- Location: Dadford, Buckinghamshire
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
I didn't look at the monitor when I filmed - I looked at the board.Jon Corby wrote:Monitor off on buzzing. No dilly-dallying in getting the answer. Flaw gone.
And yeah, I agree, injecting Nick with some speed at the end of games so he doesn't give a 5-second pre-amble would help, but maybe dealers are hard to come by in Salford
Possibly the first contestant to accelerate with a mic clipped...
- Bradley Cates
- Acolyte
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:47 pm
- Location: Southport
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
Personally, I think buzzing in order to give yourself extra time to solve the conundrum is very selfish and shows poor sportsmanship. Countdown has been a very honest gameshow since it began and there has been very little controversy, so I don't believe that the show's reputation should be besmirched because of it.
Take Jen v Callum as an example. When Callum got the conundrum wrong, that left Jen a massive opportunity to give herself some time to solve the conundrum and win the game. As the clock approached 30 seconds, she could have easily buzzed in order to give herself some extra time but she didn't, and the rest is history. In a way, if she had done it, she could have cheated her way through to the semi-finals. And who knows what would have happened afterwards.
Switching off the monitors would be recommendable as well as Nick being quicker announcing the buzzer's name, but buzzing then trying to solve the conundrum instead of vice versa should not be done no matter what. What are the advantages of this? You might end up winning the game but in the long run, would you be glad that you did it?
Take Jen v Callum as an example. When Callum got the conundrum wrong, that left Jen a massive opportunity to give herself some time to solve the conundrum and win the game. As the clock approached 30 seconds, she could have easily buzzed in order to give herself some extra time but she didn't, and the rest is history. In a way, if she had done it, she could have cheated her way through to the semi-finals. And who knows what would have happened afterwards.
Switching off the monitors would be recommendable as well as Nick being quicker announcing the buzzer's name, but buzzing then trying to solve the conundrum instead of vice versa should not be done no matter what. What are the advantages of this? You might end up winning the game but in the long run, would you be glad that you did it?
Sfumato soup
- Callum Todd
- Series 69 Champion
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
- Location: Leeds
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
Bradley's nailed it. I don't really know about changes being made to prevent it, a lot of the suggestions here sounds like good ideas, but I just think people should be aware that buzzing before you have the answer is, at best, very poor sportsmanship and, at worst, cheating. Like Gevin has said, some people may not even be aware that there's anything wrong with it, as Martin didn't seem to think so.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
Could the board flip up to remove the letters from view as well? That and instant naming of the contestant who buzzed. With the disembodied voice idea from The Chase, it could still be Nick's voice pre-recorded, but it comes as soon as they press. Maybe a picture of Corby looking menacing could replace the scramble on the monitor.Zarte Siempre wrote:I didn't look at the monitor when I filmed - I looked at the board.Jon Corby wrote:Monitor off on buzzing. No dilly-dallying in getting the answer. Flaw gone.
And yeah, I agree, injecting Nick with some speed at the end of games so he doesn't give a 5-second pre-amble would help, but maybe dealers are hard to come by in Salford
- Mark Deeks
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
This all seems a bit more cumbersome than just the words "don't do it".
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
Yeah, but Zarte's already admitted further up the page that he finds it ethical regardless and would continue to do it. This would only serve to stop the honest guys, the scumbag cheats will still feel they can do it anyway, because "who would know".Mark Deeks wrote:This all seems a bit more cumbersome than just the words "don't do it".
-
- Series 78 Champion
- Posts: 1344
- Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:56 pm
- Location: Dadford, Buckinghamshire
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
...I said I wouldn't do it, and that I didn't see it as particularly ethical... I just said it's gonna happen, and doesn't especially faze me.
Possibly the first contestant to accelerate with a mic clipped...
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 645
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 6:41 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
Ok, first of all I'm on the side that thinks you shouldn't buzz for the conundrum until you have the answer - but, in a normal letters round, say you have written down a 5 letter word, you are the second to declare, and after the 30 seconds while you're opponent is declaring a 5 as well, you spot a 6. Are you really not going to declare "6, not written down?"
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
No Philip, you shouldn't and I definitely wouldn't. (I believe you should always have to write down your words too, we've had this discussion too several times, I genuinely can't see why it isn't the case.)
And Zarte, you can defend it all you like but I'll never agree that it's okay to do it.
And Zarte, you can defend it all you like but I'll never agree that it's okay to do it.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1268
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
If your opponent buzzes after 29 seconds and gets it wrong, but from his wrong answer you see the right one, is it ethical to buzz in when the clock restarts? You certainly didn't get it in the 30 seconds after the clock started initially. Is it any more ethical to use that extra time than extra time you created yourself?
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
I think so. What if they buzz after one second and get it wrong? Should you take into account the gained time then and stop trying after 20 seconds? Do you time it? Do you also have to look at the quality of the time when they're guessing as you can't concentrate as hard? It's part of the game that they risk giving you extra time by guessing wrongly.David Williams wrote:If your opponent buzzes after 29 seconds and gets it wrong, but from his wrong answer you see the right one, is it ethical to buzz in when the clock restarts? You certainly didn't get it in the 30 seconds after the clock started initially. Is it any more ethical to use that extra time than extra time you created yourself?
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
Yeah, what Gev says. Obviously that's fine.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1268
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
I just think ethics is a much greyer area than you do. Why is it widely accepted (in the UK, maybe not in other parts of the world) that it's OK to appeal for a throw-in when you know the last touch was yours, but totally wrong to suggest that someone should be booked when the referee has given a foul. The first is a straight lie in the hope that the referee will give you an advantage that you know you shouldn't have. The second is suggesting an interpretation of something he has clearly seen, with no attempt to deceive or mislead.
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
Totes agree with you on the throw-in/booking thing. I have no idea why waving an imaginary yellow card should automatically result in a yellow card. I'm just thankful that waving an imaginary red also just results in a yellow being given, not a red. That would be truly ridiculous.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 645
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 6:41 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
Since I posted that about seeing a longer word after 30 seconds while your opponent is declaring, I think that is slightly different to unsportingly buzzing for the conundrum without knowing it, because it is something that can happen to both players an equal number of times throughout the game - so in a way it's fair for both. The conundrum is a one off though, so maybe that's why I think it's different. True though that having to be written down would eliminate that, just as blanking out the monitors and screens when someone buzzes. I guess Countdown is an entertainment programme when all is said and done, and maybe most viewers don't look at it like we do on here.Jon Corby wrote:No Philip, you shouldn't and I definitely wouldn't. (I believe you should always have to write down your words too, we've had this discussion too several times, I genuinely can't see why it isn't the case.)
And Zarte, you can defend it all you like but I'll never agree that it's okay to do it.
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
Yeah, but I don't think that's enough to justify it (you could argue that both players have an equal opportunity to Hansford). I mean, if it's intentional that one player gets longer to think of a word, then I think that would be formally included in the rules. TBH I'm not that upset about slightly late spots, the ones that really upset me are when the player goes searching for a longer word on hearing their opponent's declaration.Philip Wilson wrote:Since I posted that about seeing a longer word after 30 seconds while your opponent is declaring, I think that is slightly different to unsportingly buzzing for the conundrum without knowing it, because it is something that can happen to both players an equal number of times throughout the game - so in a way it's fair for both.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 645
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 6:41 pm
Re: Spoilers for Friday February 28th 2014 (S70 P40)
AbsolutelyJon Corby wrote:TBH I'm not that upset about slightly late spots, the ones that really upset me are when the player goes searching for a longer word on hearing their opponent's declaration.