You Are The Ref

[Ian Fitzpatrick]

This happened to me on the show.

Colin (in DC) was frantically whispering to Susie at around 15-20 seconds “I’ve got it, I’ve got it, it’s JA…” before tailing off. But then I knew it started with the J and that’s how JAILBAKER^ came about.

Had it been crucial I might have made a fuss, but it wasn’t so I simply didn’t say anything. And the fact I’d got it wrong and my opponent had then corrected me, it would have sounded like sore losing.

In that case Colin should have paid a penalty!

[JackHurst]

I think if a conundrum gets voided for any reason, it should generally be completely redone.

What do you mean by voided?

Here's a scenario for you. I think if it came up at an event most hosts would be inclined to say "redo" because it's perceived as the fairest thing to do, but imo that can sometimes be too lenient.

Scenario:
Bristol Style
P1 Buzzes very quickly. But they continue looking at the screen for a couple of seconds before they write something down
P2 Also solves it. Buzz was after P1.

In my opinion P1 should be timed out and P2 gets the 10 points. As soon as you buzz you gotta start writing. If you are still looking at the screen for a couple of seconds what could you possibly be doing that's not cheating? If you buzz you already should have an answer that you have to stick to.

[Gavin Chipper]

I think if a conundrum gets voided for any reason, it should generally be completely redone.

What do you mean by voided?

Here's a scenario for you. I think if it came up at an event most hosts would be inclined to say "redo" because it's perceived as the fairest thing to do, but imo that can sometimes be too lenient.

Scenario:
Bristol Style
P1 Buzzes very quickly. But they continue looking at the screen for a couple of seconds before they write something down
P2 Also solves it. Buzz was after P1.

In my opinion P1 should be timed out and P2 gets the 10 points. As soon as you buzz you gotta start writing. If you are still looking at the screen for a couple of seconds what could you possibly be doing that's not cheating? If you buzz you already should have an answer that you have to stick to.

If it has to be redone because something happened not caused by the players I could count that as voided in a neutral sense.

This example here isn't really a voided scenario - just a general judgement question on how long is too long and whether you should count someone out.

If you ask someone for their not-written-down numbers solution, and they delay a bit, you make a judgement call on whether it was too long. Allow or not allow. Voiding the round and playing it again wouldn't be a consideration. I think the same applies here.

The slightly more edge case would be in Edinburgh/Lincoln when they buzz, then pause and say the answer out loud just as you're timing them out.

But your example that started this was a proper void and a redo round job I would say.

[JackHurst]

You are at a co-event, and about to watch the final between Players A and B. The host wants some help picking a good conundrum for the final, and the pull you over to consider three options.

One of the options is a word which came up in a group chat with Player A yesterday. You know that if this option comes up that Player A will solve it very quickly.

WWYD? Here's some ways of dealing with that I can think of.
1) Be honest and tell them that you know player A saw option X yesterday
2) Don't tell the host, and just go with which you feel is a good conundrum for a final. If you feel the conundrum that player A saw is the best conundrum then pick it.
3) Tell the host that player A saw one of the options yesterday and ask the host if they want that option to be excluded (without telling them which it is)
4) Express no preference, and also don't tell the host that you know about A knowing one of the answers already.

[Fiona T]

You are at a co-event, and about to watch the final between Players A and B. The host wants some help picking a good conundrum for the final, and the pull you over to consider three options.

One of the options is a word which came up in a group chat with Player A yesterday. You know that if this option comes up that Player A will solve it very quickly.

WWYD? Here's some ways of dealing with that I can think of.
1) Be honest and tell them that you know player A saw option X yesterday
2) Don't tell the host, and just go with which you feel is a good conundrum for a final. If you feel the conundrum that player A saw is the best conundrum then pick it.
3) Tell the host that player A saw one of the options yesterday and ask the host if they want that option to be excluded (without telling them which it is)
4) Express no preference, and also don't tell the host that you know about A knowing one of the answers already.

5) Tell the host that as you are in a group chat with Player A where conundrums are often shared, you're not impartial and ask them to ask someone else

[Martin Hurst]

You are at a co-event, and about to watch the final between Players A and B. The host wants some help picking a good conundrum for the final, and the pull you over to consider three options.

One of the options is a word which came up in a group chat with Player A yesterday. You know that if this option comes up that Player A will solve it very quickly.

WWYD? Here's some ways of dealing with that I can think of.
1) Be honest and tell them that you know player A saw option X yesterday
2) Don't tell the host, and just go with which you feel is a good conundrum for a final. If you feel the conundrum that player A saw is the best conundrum then pick it.
3) Tell the host that player A saw one of the options yesterday and ask the host if they want that option to be excluded (without telling them which it is)
4) Express no preference, and also don't tell the host that you know about A knowing one of the answers already.

5) Tell them to go with X, then head down the bookies.

I imagine most would instinctively say option 1, which I think most involved would expect to happen.

[Matt Rutherford]

You are at a co-event, and about to watch the final between Players A and B. The host wants some help picking a good conundrum for the final, and the pull you over to consider three options.

One of the options is a word which came up in a group chat with Player A yesterday. You know that if this option comes up that Player A will solve it very quickly.

WWYD? Here's some ways of dealing with that I can think of.
1) Be honest and tell them that you know player A saw option X yesterday
2) Don't tell the host, and just go with which you feel is a good conundrum for a final. If you feel the conundrum that player A saw is the best conundrum then pick it.
3) Tell the host that player A saw one of the options yesterday and ask the host if they want that option to be excluded (without telling them which it is)
4) Express no preference, and also don't tell the host that you know about A knowing one of the answers already.

Rugby this year, was picking final conundrums, asked for help. Wasn't quite the same as 'they saw it in a group chat', but people who I asked said 'player X will insta-buzz, player Y will know that.' From a host's view, knowing it would be better-option 1,3 or 5. On the other hand, for whilst Player A may have seen in a group chat, Player B could have had it in his flashcards or his ascension run the day before. No clear way to deal with it, but it happens.

[Gavin Chipper]

I think this shows the problem with hand-picked conundrums and inevitable bias. I don't think "stalking" a player is the best way of going about it. I think if a conundrum is being hand-picked, it should be done without any reference to the players involved. If someone happens to have seen a conundrum in the last few days, then good luck to them. I think 5 (Fiona's) is a good option.

[Callum Todd]

I think 2) is fine here. most conundrum skill, especially at high level, is about recalling previously seen/practised conundrums. How/where/when the player last saw the conundrum is entirely irrelevant (unless obviously something dodgy like a list of tournament Conundrums to be used had been left lying around and they saw it there). Often conundrums will come down to whoever had the best luck of seeing that particular conundrum most recently anyway.

If anything, I consider that controlling against the good luck of one player (who saw that conundrum recently) is more unfair and manipulative than saying nothing, as you're only controlling for their conundrum practise and not their opponent's.

So just pick a good conundrum. If one of the players saw/practised it recently, that's a legitimate way for them to win.

[Gavin Chipper]

The problem with 2 is that your view of it as a conundrum might be biased by previously seeing it as a conundrum that player A got. So 4 or Fiona's 5 is better.

[Philip A]

The final conundrum should be set before knowing who the finalists are going to be, no? And yeah, just say nothing, otherwise you’ll influence the player(s) pre-conundrum and that wouldn’t be fair. It’s like telling someone on Millionaire that we have no history questions for you because you recently did a history degree.

[Adam S Latchford]

The final conundrum should be set before knowing who the finalists are going to be, no? And yeah, just say nothing, otherwise you’ll influence the player(s) pre-conundrum and that wouldn’t be fair. It’s like telling someone on Millionaire that we have no history questions for you because you recently did a history degree.

Sure, things should be done, but hosts will often ask people for help.
Its quite hard tailoring a good con (solveable but not insta solved) when we're talking about the calibre of opponents, and some hosts have got it violently wrong (either never ever solvable or the equivalent of squeezing) so asking is common. Can hardly ask before hand as you don't know who's in the final

[David Harrison]

You are at a co-event, and about to watch the final between Players A and B. The host wants some help picking a good conundrum for the final, and the pull you over to consider three options.

One of the options is a word which came up in a group chat with Player A yesterday. You know that if this option comes up that Player A will solve it very quickly.

WWYD? Here's some ways of dealing with that I can think of.
1) Be honest and tell them that you know player A saw option X yesterday
2) Don't tell the host, and just go with which you feel is a good conundrum for a final. If you feel the conundrum that player A saw is the best conundrum then pick it.
3) Tell the host that player A saw one of the options yesterday and ask the host if they want that option to be excluded (without telling them which it is)
4) Express no preference, and also don't tell the host that you know about A knowing one of the answers already.

I would do 3 and then recuse myself.

[James Laverty]

Maybe not a You Are the Ref, but an event I’m helping oversee atm could be done very similarly in this manner.

Contestant A appears on the show, winning their first two games, but losing the third on a crucial conundrum. Shortly after the last game, it is found their opponent, Contestant B had a word wrongly allowed. Having already started a show with Contestant B as the new champion, it is decided to carry on, and Contestant A is invited back on the next series.

This time Contestant A wins 4 games, before losing again. His 4 wins leaves him just outside a finals place, however if you include his two wins from the previous series, he would be in the finals. Do you include add the previous points total to his existing score, or is it tough luck and this series only?

[Ben Wilson]

Maybe not a You Are the Ref, but an event I’m helping oversee atm could be done very similarly in this manner.

Contestant A appears on the show, winning their first two games, but losing the third on a crucial conundrum. Shortly after the last game, it is found their opponent, Contestant B had a word wrongly allowed. Having already started a show with Contestant B as the new champion, it is decided to carry on, and Contestant A is invited back on the next series.

This time Contestant A wins 4 games, before losing again. His 4 wins leaves him just outside a finals place, however if you include his two wins from the previous series, he would be in the finals. Do you include add the previous points total to his existing score, or is it tough luck and this series only?

https://wiki.apterous.org/Chris_Williams season 31 says no, but https://wiki.apterous.org/Helen_Wrigglesworth season 42 says yes.

https://wiki.apterous.org/Returning_con ... ive_errors

No one from the Eadie era has won enough games in either appearance for this to be an issue yet.

[Thomas Cappleman]

Ben beat me to the specific examples. (Related, Martin May had 2 games in one series, withdrew for personal reasons, then carried on with that count next series)

Was surprised with Helen's case to see that they specifically overturned the dodgy result and included it in her count, rather than just writing it off entirely

[Gavin Chipper]

Having looked at the wiki, Chris Williams lost because he had two words disallowed that were added to the next dictionary, so it wasn't a mistake. In that case you definitely wouldn't include his old games anyway.

[Fiona T]

It possibly doesn't matter as long as it's clear before you start the second go - otherwise if they won 4 in the first appearance, then 5 in the second, you couldn't decide after to only count 8 games.