c4countdown

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2019 6:15 pm Haha, promise I wasn't too drunk!

Edited.

I should edit mine as it's probably homophobic

My lack of interest in sports such as football and rugby is nothing new, and results in a serious weak spot in my quizzing ability since I just can't retain facts and figures about a subject I find so mind-numbingly dull. Part of this is that the meaning of common sporting terms that most people seem to take for granted eludes me. When I ask people to explain these terms they invariably miss the point and give a long technical explanation that assumes, wrongly, that I already understand the basic principle that I was trying to clarify.

So, here's the one that eludes and frustrates me most often. When newsreaders say that a sportsperson "has x caps" what does that mean? I think (although I'm not confident) it's something to do with being captain of a team, but (please don't laugh) is the "cap" an actual physical piece of headgear or does it just refer to the status? And if a player is captain of a side for a certain period, e.g. a season, does that count as one cap or is it a per-game thing?

Feel free to scoff, hurl abuse etc. at my ignorance but if someone could actually answer the question I'd be grateful.

I always used to wonder about this as well. I think it's just the number of games that you've played for your national team, so you don't need to be captain. Whether or not there is an actual physical cap I have no idea.

Newsreaders assuming knowledge of this sort of stuff is annoying.

The intro to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_(sport) describes it well.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:59 am Newsreaders assuming knowledge of this sort of stuff is annoying.

Also quizmasters. On Pointless Richard Osman says things like "teams in the 2018-19 Champions League" and I have no idea what that means. I know the names of some football teams, so I could have a wild guess, but I have no idea whether I'm meant to be guessing local or national teams or whether they have to be British, European or whatever.

Thomas Cappleman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:10 am The intro to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_(sport) describes it well.

True (thanks) although it gets confusing again as it starts off by saying it's a metaphorical thing, then later it says that association football teams still award a physical cap. If so, and players are given one every time they play at international level, some of them must have hundreds. Where on earth do they keep them all?

Phil Reynolds wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:15 am

Thomas Cappleman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:10 am The intro to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_(sport) describes it well.

True (thanks) although it gets confusing again as it starts off by saying it's a metaphorical thing, then later it says that association football teams still award a physical cap. If so, and players are given one every time they play at international level, some of them must have hundreds. Where on earth do they keep them all?

Yeah, seems that any time people talk about number of caps they'll be talking about the metaphorical number (i.e. how many times they've played). The player may also have a number of physical caps, which for footballers will awkwardly not be the same - only 1 per tournament. And whether the generalization is true for every country in every sport, who knows.

Looks like Beckham really kept his: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/a ... -caps.html

So if Beckham does really have 115 caps, it must be one physical cap per game, not per tournament.

Edit - just read the Wikipedia bit. The Daily Mail is probably wrong about the number he has.

I remember when Bobby Moore got a hundred caps I remember a photo with him and the caps in the background.

On a similar sporting theme .
When medals are calculated for each country why isn't the physical amount of medals added up.
For example in rowing , whoever wins the coxless eights would be awarded 8 physical medals but only one is added to the nation's talky

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:47 pm On a similar sporting theme .
When medals are calculated for each country why isn't the physical amount of medals added up.
For example in rowing , whoever wins the coxless eights would be awarded 8 physical medals but only one is added to the nation's talky

That would unfairly bias the overall medals total to whichever nations did better in team sports. Win the a football event, and you'd be pretty much a shoo-in for the top six medals table immediately.

Ian Volante wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:59 pm

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:47 pm On a similar sporting theme .
When medals are calculated for each country why isn't the physical amount of medals added up.
For example in rowing , whoever wins the coxless eights would be awarded 8 physical medals but only one is added to the nation's talky

That would unfairly bias the overall medals total to whichever nations did better in team sports. Win the a football event, and you'd be pretty much a shoo-in for the top six medals table immediately.

If anything, the change should be that they have to share one medal between them.

Phil Reynolds wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:11 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:59 am Newsreaders assuming knowledge of this sort of stuff is annoying.

Also quizmasters. On Pointless Richard Osman says things like "teams in the 2018-19 Champions League" and I have no idea what that means. I know the names of some football teams, so I could have a wild guess, but I have no idea whether I'm meant to be guessing local or national teams or whether they have to be British, European or whatever.

"And now, tonight's Champions League results. The Champions League is an annual football tournament contested by the leading clubs in Europe. Football, or association football, is a game played between two teams of eleven . . . "

Unfortunately there won't be time for any of this, because the bulletin started with
"Firstly, the latest news on Brexit. Brexit is the abbreviation commonly applied to describe the process by which the United Kingdom will leave the European Union. The European Union is . . ."

David Williams wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 8:44 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:11 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:59 am Newsreaders assuming knowledge of this sort of stuff is annoying.

Also quizmasters. On Pointless Richard Osman says things like "teams in the 2018-19 Champions League" and I have no idea what that means. I know the names of some football teams, so I could have a wild guess, but I have no idea whether I'm meant to be guessing local or national teams or whether they have to be British, European or whatever.

"And now, tonight's Champions League results. The Champions League is an annual football tournament contested by the leading clubs in Europe. Football, or association football, is a game played between two teams of eleven . . . "

Unfortunately there won't be time for any of this, because the bulletin started with
"Firstly, the latest news on Brexit. Brexit is the abbreviation commonly applied to describe the process by which the United Kingdom will leave the European Union. The European Union is . . ."

Some things are more intuitive or more reasonably considered common knowledge than others. Caps? I'm not sure.

Do you remember when they suddenly started talking about diplomatic cables, a term nobody uses ever, without any introduction or explanation? No-one knows what a sapper is or an AM. The "deficit" came out of nowhere after we first had the "credit crunch" in around 2008. Abolishing the 10p tax rate sounds like people would pay less tax doesn't it?

David Williams wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 8:44 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:11 am On Pointless Richard Osman says things like "teams in the 2018-19 Champions League" and I have no idea what that means. I know the names of some football teams, so I could have a wild guess, but I have no idea whether I'm meant to be guessing local or national teams or whether they have to be British, European or whatever.

"And now, tonight's Champions League results. The Champions League is an annual football tournament contested by the leading clubs in Europe. Football, or association football, is a game played between two teams of eleven . . . "

Don't be silly. It's safe to assume that anyone interested in hearing the results on the news will know what the Champions League is. Totally different situation to a quiz where it's reasonable and fair to clarify what's being asked for (e.g. "any European club side* competing in the 2018-19 Champions League"). Richard already does this with most questions; the fact that he doesn't when it's a football-related question is a symptom of the arrogant but common assumption among football fans that everyone else is interested in it too.

* Just Googled it for the sake of this example so at least I've learnt something new about football, although I doubt I'll be able to remember it next time it comes up in a quiz.

Phil Reynolds wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:30 pm

David Williams wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 8:44 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:11 am On Pointless Richard Osman says things like "teams in the 2018-19 Champions League" and I have no idea what that means. I know the names of some football teams, so I could have a wild guess, but I have no idea whether I'm meant to be guessing local or national teams or whether they have to be British, European or whatever.

"And now, tonight's Champions League results. The Champions League is an annual football tournament contested by the leading clubs in Europe. Football, or association football, is a game played between two teams of eleven . . . "

Don't be silly. It's safe to assume that anyone interested in hearing the results on the news will know what the Champions League is. Totally different situation to a quiz where it's reasonable and fair to clarify what's being asked for (e.g. "any European club side* competing in the 2018-19 Champions League"). Richard already does this with most questions; the fact that he doesn't when it's a football-related question is a symptom of the arrogant but common assumption among football fans that everyone else is interested in it too.

* Just Googled it for the sake of this example so at least I've learnt something new about football, although I doubt I'll be able to remember it next time it comes up in a quiz.

Football is still our national sport so I don't think it's arrogance at all.

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:24 am Football is still our national sport so I don't think it's arrogance at all.

It's the UK's most popular sport. (The national sport is cricket, apparently.) But so what? That's like saying that Coronation Street is the most popular TV soap, so everyone is expected to know all about it.

I have a friend who appeared on Pointless, and apparently it's ok to ask for clarification. So if a Champions League question came up it would be ok to ask "Is that a European competition?"

Phil Reynolds wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:34 pm But so what? That's like saying that Coronation Street is the most popular TV soap, so everyone is expected to know all about it.

So, if you expect some clarification as to what the Champions League is, you would also expect some clarification about Coronation Street? I thought the general idea was to reward people who knew stuff, not to allow people who know very little to make less ridiculous guesses.

Phil Reynolds wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:11 amAlso quizmasters. On Pointless Richard Osman says things like "teams in the 2018-19 Champions League" and I have no idea what that means. I know the names of some football teams, so I could have a wild guess, but I have no idea whether I'm meant to be guessing local or national teams or whether they have to be British, European or whatever.

Yeah, it is pretty annoying that not knowing things can disadvantage you in a quiz.

Conor wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:37 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:11 amAlso quizmasters. On Pointless Richard Osman says things like "teams in the 2018-19 Champions League" and I have no idea what that means. I know the names of some football teams, so I could have a wild guess, but I have no idea whether I'm meant to be guessing local or national teams or whether they have to be British, European or whatever.

Yeah, it is pretty annoying that not knowing things can disadvantage you in a quiz.

Haha. I'm tempted to argue that your point is a specious one, since in most other cases Richard gives lots of supplementary information to clarify what the bounds of the subject are. But I'm willing to concede that the roots of my gripe lie with my unreasonable loathing of football and hence disinterest in retaining any facts about it.

In fairness if you don't know the scope of the Champions League (i.e. Europe-wide, top teams) then that level of clarification isn't going to make you competitive in a quiz or on Pointless. It seem unlikely to me that you're going to think "I'm lokoing for an obscure 2018-19 Champions League teams.....I now know that it's not just Bitish so I won't go with Accrington Stanley, rather I'll go for Romanian champions Cluj or Belgian runners-up RKC Genk)

Likewise if you don't know that the "Cabinet" is made up of the government's ministers that calrification isn't going to help you dredge up the Minster for Wales

What actually is the purpose of those padding spaces we're always supposed to add in certain fields of the Countdown Wiki recaps, such as the space preceding the first numbers round number? (Yes, I know this is off-Off-Topic, but meh.)

Say you are on public transport. It's busy and there's only one free seat next to a stranger so you sit there. At the next stop lots of people get off and free up seats. Should you move to a free seat or stay where you are?

It's the age-old question. It's awkward either way.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 7:43 pm It's t wehe age-old question. It's awkward either way.

It depends on how many stops I have left.
If it's a long journey I will move as I hate being on the end as invariably someone will jog into me and as I have a delicate knee then it's a worry , but I have the three stops rule, if I've three stops or less left then I will stay put

It also depends on the person next to me - if they're blasting music/talking loudly on the phone/eating something very noisily/messily/smellily/generally being annoying then sure, I'm going to be inclined to move - if they judge me then so what, I'm not going to ever encounter them again. If they're being pleasant and not annoying, I'll probably stay put (though probably silently be willing them to move).

I usually move, unless I'm only on for a very short time. Often the window seat has a plug socket, and I like to lean against it to nap, so I prefer it even if someone else ends up during next to me. I don't mind the sitting next to strangers part of aisle seats, I just like the windows more

I particularly hate it when you're on the train feeling a bit tired and you want to have a nap but there's no plug socket to lean against!

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:06 am I particularly hate it when you're on the train feeling a bit tired and you want to have a nap but there's no plug socket to lean against!

Touché.

Thomas Carey wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:05 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:06 am I particularly hate it when you're on the train feeling a bit tired and you want to have a nap but there's no plug socket to lean against!

Touché.

Is that actually what you meant?

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 3:31 pm

Thomas Carey wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:05 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:06 am I particularly hate it when you're on the train feeling a bit tired and you want to have a nap but there's no plug socket to lean against!

Touché.

Is that actually what you meant?

Lean against the wall. Combined with the seat back you have a nice corner. Try to do that in an aisle seat and you'll probably be thrown into the aisle or your neighbour.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:06 am I particularly hate it when you're on the train feeling a bit tired and you want to have a nap but there's no plug socket to lean against!

Maus's bed:

)

Maus ,
I'm a bit behind with these affectionate terms , Tin

Incorrect. Not a bush

For those of you who like your animals dead and on your plate - I always hear that when it comes to cooking meat, you have to do it properly, make sure it's cooked through etc., so you don't get things like salmonella or E. Coli. But then why does that all go out the window when it comes to steaks? Why have steaks become some sort of contest to see who can eat their meat the rawest* and still give the impression that they're enjoying it?

*Do you make an "r" sound in the middle of this word? And in words like "drawing"? I think most people do, right?

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 7:29 pm For those of you who like your animals dead and on your plate - I always hear that when it comes to cooking meat, you have to do it properly, make sure it's cooked through etc., so you don't get things like salmonella or E. Coli. But then why does that all go out the window when it comes to steaks? Why have steaks become some sort of contest to see who can eat their meat the rawest* and still give the impression that they're enjoying it?

*Do you make an "r" sound in the middle of this word? And in words like "drawing"? I think most people do, right?

Fun fact , the red stuff that oozes from a steak is not blood.
But I do agree , raw meat and especially virtually raw Tuna leaves me cold

Mind you it's a moot point now since I've been veggie for 2 months (still can't give up cheese and eggs though )

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 7:29 pm For those of you who like your animals dead and on your plate - I always hear that when it comes to cooking meat, you have to do it properly, make sure it's cooked through etc., so you don't get things like salmonella or E. Coli. But then why does that all go out the window when it comes to steaks? Why have steaks become some sort of contest to see who can eat their meat the rawest* and still give the impression that they're enjoying it?

*Do you make an "r" sound in the middle of this word? And in words like "drawing"? I think most people do, right?

No, I don't make an "r" sound, because there isn't one.

Different meats require different amounts of cooking to make them safe. Chicken and pork have to be cooked through. Beef and lamb don't. If there are nasties, they are on the surface from contamination, so as long as the outside is seared, they're safe to eat.

The problem comes when you mince it, so the 'outside' is spread through it. If not prepared correctly, then that can cause bugs if served pink.

What is grass?

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 8:09 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 7:29 pm For those of you who like your animals dead and on your plate - I always hear that when it comes to cooking meat, you have to do it properly, make sure it's cooked through etc., so you don't get things like salmonella or E. Coli. But then why does that all go out the window when it comes to steaks? Why have steaks become some sort of contest to see who can eat their meat the rawest* and still give the impression that they're enjoying it?

*Do you make an "r" sound in the middle of this word? And in words like "drawing"? I think most people do, right?

Fun fact , the red stuff that oozes from a steak is not blood.
But I do agree , raw meat and especially virtually raw Tuna leaves me cold

Mind you it's a moot point now since I've been veggie for 2 months (still can't give up cheese and eggs though )

Chicken and Pork have to be well cooked I got poisoning from them once, I tried “Veganuary” last year and I lasted about 7 days (if that).

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 7:57 am What is grass?

baby don't hurt me

Thomas Carey wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:37 pm

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 7:57 am What is grass?

baby don't hurt me

Hahaha absolute gold.


Srsly though. I have never understood exactly what grass is.

My question was not supposed to be funny. I really want an answer. I have asked it many times, to biology teachers and to the Internet, and am yet to receive an answer.

Tom's response was supposed to be funny, and it succeeded.

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:58 am My question was not supposed to be funny. I really want an answer. I have asked it many times, to biology teachers and to the Internet, and am yet to receive an answer.

Tom's response was supposed to be funny, and it succeeded.

Isn't https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poaceae enough to sate your desire for knowledge on the topic?

This helps a lot. I tried Wikipedia years ago and it wasn't nearly as helpful. After a brief skim of that page I still have a few questions. Will read it more thoroughly later. Thanks Ian!

Fiona T wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 9:51 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 7:29 pm
*Do you make an "r" sound in the middle of this word? And in words like "drawing"? I think most people do, right?

No, I don't make an "r" sound, because there isn't one.

Controversial! There is actually some discussion about it on the internet.

The gist of it seems to be that British people stopped pronouncing the r at the end of words but carried on doing so if there is a vowel sound next (like adding ing, or if the next word begins with a vowel). And then because a word like "draw" is pronounced like "dror" it then got dragged into it. Americans on the other hand still pronounce the r at the end, so they don't see "draw" as the same at all.

I think that's not the whole story though. I think it's all partly because the r sound is just really easy to fit in at that point. If the word "poo" was spelt with a silent r at the end, I don't think we'd be pronouncing the r when sticking ing on the end. In fact, thinking about it, it's more natural (for me anyway) to make a slight w sound in "pooing" and "going" and a y sound in "seeing". So I think it's probably partly to do with how you make certain sounds with your mouth and how you transition from one sound to another, rather than purely because of this historical r.

Well I fear this is where we differ - draw is not pronounced like dror But then I don't pronounce roar and raw the same either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhoticity_in_English

It appears my Scottish heritage is the differentiator here.

"Many non-rhotic speakers also insert an epenthetic /r/ between vowels when the first vowel is one that can occur before syllable-final r (drawring for drawing). "

Fiona T wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:08 pm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhoticity_in_English

It appears my Scottish heritage is the differentiator here.

"Many non-rhotic speakers also insert an epenthetic /r/ between vowels when the first vowel is one that can occur before syllable-final r (drawring for drawing). "

Yep, and as a Yorkshireman, I have no truck with rhoticity, and my vowel sounds are pancake-like. Floor and flaw sound identical from me, unless there's a following word.

Why does the BCG vaccine scar much more than other vaccines?

Why isn't wearing helmets in cars a thing like it is on bikes (pedal and motor)? The risk of head injury might not be as high, and it would be annoying, but the risk still exists. Literally no-one ever talks about this.

Maybe if you drive a convertible

Why are some football transfer fees undisclosed? What's the big secret? Do you reckon it's because the fee was less than or more than you'd expect, or could it be either depending on the player? What could possibly be the harm in disclosing any fee other than the disgust at the obscenity of transfer fees these days?

Mark James wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 1:45 am Why are some football transfer fees undisclosed? What's the big secret? Do you reckon it's because the fee was less than or more than you'd expect, or could it be either depending on the player? What could possibly be the harm in disclosing any fee other than the disgust at the obscenity of transfer fees these days?

I've always assumed the transfer fee has a number of add one and conditions that need to be met also buy back options that the club's may not want to disclose.
Which can make the fee quite fluid.

Or more likely , disclosure could lead to embarrassment

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Mar 19, 2020 1:34 pm Why isn't wearing helmets in cars a thing like it is on bikes (pedal and motor)? The risk of head injury might not be as high, and it would be annoying, but the risk still exists. Literally no-one ever talks about this.

Rally drivers wear helmets. But presumably the marginal benefit is so low that it's not worth the annoyance. And for 'normal driving' it could increase the chance of having an accident due to a loss in peripheral vision or the awkwardness of turning your head, and this isn't enough to offset the reduce in risk of serious injury conditional on having an accident. Also, cars already have airbags.

Mark James wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 1:45 am Why are some football transfer fees undisclosed? What's the big secret? Do you reckon it's because the fee was less than or more than you'd expect, or could it be either depending on the player? What could possibly be the harm in disclosing any fee other than the disgust at the obscenity of transfer fees these days?

If the transfer fee is surprisingly 'wide of the mark' (either high or low) then there's some good reasons not to disclose it. If it's surprisingly low, the buying club may not want to draw attention to getting such a good deal so they can buy more players from that club later on. Or if there's a quid pro quo relationship between the two clubs they don't want to draw attention to that (I don't know if that actually happens in practice). And if it's very high, the selling club might not want everyone to know they're suddenly flush with cash. Like when Barcelona sold Neymar and ended up overpaying for Coutinho and Dembele as their next two big buys.

Conor wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 5:55 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Mar 19, 2020 1:34 pm Why isn't wearing helmets in cars a thing like it is on bikes (pedal and motor)? The risk of head injury might not be as high, and it would be annoying, but the risk still exists. Literally no-one ever talks about this.

Rally drivers wear helmets. But presumably the marginal benefit is so low that it's not worth the annoyance. And for 'normal driving' it could increase the chance of having an accident due to a loss in peripheral vision or the awkwardness of turning your head, and this isn't enough to offset the reduce in risk of serious injury conditional on having an accident. Also, cars already have airbags.

Rally drivers and racing drivers in general of course. There are also passengers to consider. They don't need to worry about peripheral vision so maybe they should still wear helmets! Airbags can help but presumably you can also hit your head on a side window, if e.g. the car rolls. And the roof might get dented in in a serious enough crash. I wonder how common head injuries are in car accidents compared to other injuries. I'm just surprised I've never seen this come up in a discussion about how you could reduce car accident injuries, even if to dismiss it. And it could be something light like a bicycle helmet. (And I've never worried about peripheral vision when cycling in one of them.)

If every human above a certain age were to die instantaneously, what is the minimum age that could be for the human race to still survive into the future in some form?