Originally Posted by Virgin Queen:
“I just knew somebody would say that.”
“I just knew somebody would say that.”
Aargh! It's a witch!
The Chase (ITV) (Part 4)
242 of 368
Originally Posted by Autumn-Dreams:
“Claudia only answered one question, but she got at least 2 pushbacks, and she added a step on, as well as answering that one question. So it could be said that the other 2 would not have won without her. Also, I usually get annoyed when people take the low offer, but at least it was a plus offer.
They all deserved to win IMO.”
“Claudia only answered one question, but she got at least 2 pushbacks, and she added a step on, as well as answering that one question. So it could be said that the other 2 would not have won without her. Also, I usually get annoyed when people take the low offer, but at least it was a plus offer.
They all deserved to win IMO.”
I agree. Whilst obviously far better players have left empty-handed, its a team game, and they played brilliantly as a team. That was a thrilling final chase, must admit I didn't expect much from them today but they did fantastically well on the pushbacks there!
Originally Posted by richie4eva:
“And it's the Sinnerman getting his series 10 campaign started today”
“And it's the Sinnerman getting his series 10 campaign started today”
According to my digi guide it was Series 10 Episode 34 today, so are you saying Paul hasn't been on for the last 33 shows of this series?
Originally Posted by Vientre:
“No suprise there then why do these people go on the show? The idea is to win money.”
“No suprise there then why do these people go on the show? The idea is to win money.”
Which is exactly what she did.
The guy before her took the middle offer and didn't win any money.
Originally Posted by wckartist:
“She's an embarrassment!
Total idiot, i'm glad Paul told her how people would think of her after what she had said on national TV.”
“She's an embarrassment!
Total idiot, i'm glad Paul told her how people would think of her after what she had said on national TV.”
Not an idiot at all, she won £4K, and she had a good riposte to Paul.
Originally Posted by Boz_Lowdownl:
“According to my digi guide it was Series 10 Episode 34 today, so are you saying Paul hasn't been on for the last 33 shows of this series?”
“According to my digi guide it was Series 10 Episode 34 today, so are you saying Paul hasn't been on for the last 33 shows of this series?
”
I don't know why people think it's the start of a series. Started in the middle of April.
Originally Posted by doctorwhofancal:
“So Jenny says Episode 1000 is coming this September. When does everyone think it will be?”
“So Jenny says Episode 1000 is coming this September. When does everyone think it will be?”
September.
What word can go before 'ring', 'muff'...?
"Finger?"
I'm surprised Bradley didn't crease up with 'finger muff'.
"Finger?"
I'm surprised Bradley didn't crease up with 'finger muff'.
A bit unusual that Beastie Boy was on for the second time this week today. Normally each Chaser appears once every week
Today there were 4 finalists. It seems there was no way Beastie Boy should have won, but win he did. So, is the method of finalists having to buzz in and wait for their name to be called presenting the chaser with an unfair advantage? If it takes one second to buzz and wait for your name, that is 20 seconds wasted . The chaser doesn't have this impediment. I just don't see the point of the buzzer and waiting for a name. Sure, keep the "wrong person answered" penalty, just do it with lights.
The chasers are still bloody clever though!
The chasers are still bloody clever though!
Originally Posted by im62youknow:
“Today there were 4 finalists. It seems there was no way Beastie Boy should have won, but win he did. So, is the method of finalists having to buzz in and wait for their name to be called presenting the chaser with an unfair advantage? If it takes one second to buzz and wait for your name, that is 20 seconds wasted . The chaser doesn't have this impediment. I just don't see the point of the buzzer and waiting for a name. Sure, keep the "wrong person answered" penalty, just do it with lights.
The chasers are still bloody clever though!”
“Today there were 4 finalists. It seems there was no way Beastie Boy should have won, but win he did. So, is the method of finalists having to buzz in and wait for their name to be called presenting the chaser with an unfair advantage? If it takes one second to buzz and wait for your name, that is 20 seconds wasted . The chaser doesn't have this impediment. I just don't see the point of the buzzer and waiting for a name. Sure, keep the "wrong person answered" penalty, just do it with lights.
The chasers are still bloody clever though!”
How does that fit with yesterday's team win?
Originally Posted by im62youknow:
“Today there were 4 finalists. It seems there was no way Beastie Boy should have won, but win he did. So, is the method of finalists having to buzz in and wait for their name to be called presenting the chaser with an unfair advantage? If it takes one second to buzz and wait for your name, that is 20 seconds wasted . The chaser doesn't have this impediment. I just don't see the point of the buzzer and waiting for a name. Sure, keep the "wrong person answered" penalty, just do it with lights.
The chasers are still bloody clever though!”
“Today there were 4 finalists. It seems there was no way Beastie Boy should have won, but win he did. So, is the method of finalists having to buzz in and wait for their name to be called presenting the chaser with an unfair advantage? If it takes one second to buzz and wait for your name, that is 20 seconds wasted . The chaser doesn't have this impediment. I just don't see the point of the buzzer and waiting for a name. Sure, keep the "wrong person answered" penalty, just do it with lights.
The chasers are still bloody clever though!”
I agree . With four on the team it always seems they loose time waiting to see if another knows the answer . Two seem to work better as they can signal that they dont know and pass quicker .
I don't know why people keep complaining about the contestants being disadvantaged by having to buzz in. Today they had a four step head start; four people's knowledge to answer the questions; four people's knowledge to get pushbacks. How much easier do we need to make it for them?
And the head start is specifically there to compensate for the extra time buzzing in, as Bradley has said himself:
"Don’t forget, if I’ve got Mark Labbett answering questions for two minutes and I’ve got a team answering for two minutes, the team aren’t going to be quicker. Simple as that, because they have to press the button, which is why they get a head start based on how many people are in the final. If you’ve got three people in the final chase that’s a three step head start – that’s about a twelve second advantage."
And the head start is specifically there to compensate for the extra time buzzing in, as Bradley has said himself:
"Don’t forget, if I’ve got Mark Labbett answering questions for two minutes and I’ve got a team answering for two minutes, the team aren’t going to be quicker. Simple as that, because they have to press the button, which is why they get a head start based on how many people are in the final. If you’ve got three people in the final chase that’s a three step head start – that’s about a twelve second advantage."
I don't think the contestants are disadvantaged at all.
Don't forget that whenever a Chaser gets a question wrong, the contestants have the benefit of 'conferring time'. The way the show is edited does not reveal how much time Bradley gives them but surely unlike the Chaser, they're not pressured against the clock nor asked for an answer immediately.
Don't forget that whenever a Chaser gets a question wrong, the contestants have the benefit of 'conferring time'. The way the show is edited does not reveal how much time Bradley gives them but surely unlike the Chaser, they're not pressured against the clock nor asked for an answer immediately.
Originally Posted by im62youknow:
“Today there were 4 finalists. It seems there was no way Beastie Boy should have won, but win he did. So, is the method of finalists having to buzz in and wait for their name to be called presenting the chaser with an unfair advantage? If it takes one second to buzz and wait for your name, that is 20 seconds wasted . The chaser doesn't have this impediment. I just don't see the point of the buzzer and waiting for a name. Sure, keep the "wrong person answered" penalty, just do it with lights.
The chasers are still bloody clever though!”
“Today there were 4 finalists. It seems there was no way Beastie Boy should have won, but win he did. So, is the method of finalists having to buzz in and wait for their name to be called presenting the chaser with an unfair advantage? If it takes one second to buzz and wait for your name, that is 20 seconds wasted . The chaser doesn't have this impediment. I just don't see the point of the buzzer and waiting for a name. Sure, keep the "wrong person answered" penalty, just do it with lights.
The chasers are still bloody clever though!”
No because the disadvantage is negated by:
a) The head start. (4 steps on its own would take about 16-20 seconds to amass)
b) The contestants can push the chaser back
Awesome performance by the beast against a very good team. Makes a change to see an estate agent gazumped though.
Originally Posted by kryskrys:
“I don't know why people keep complaining about the contestants being disadvantaged by having to buzz in. Today they had a four step head start; four people's knowledge to answer the questions; four people's knowledge to get pushbacks. How much easier do we need to make it for them?
And the head start is specifically there to compensate for the extra time buzzing in, as Bradley has said himself:
"Don’t forget, if I’ve got Mark Labbett answering questions for two minutes and I’ve got a team answering for two minutes, the team aren’t going to be quicker. Simple as that, because they have to press the button, which is why they get a head start based on how many people are in the final. If you’ve got three people in the final chase that’s a three step head start – that’s about a twelve second advantage."”
“I don't know why people keep complaining about the contestants being disadvantaged by having to buzz in. Today they had a four step head start; four people's knowledge to answer the questions; four people's knowledge to get pushbacks. How much easier do we need to make it for them?
And the head start is specifically there to compensate for the extra time buzzing in, as Bradley has said himself:
"Don’t forget, if I’ve got Mark Labbett answering questions for two minutes and I’ve got a team answering for two minutes, the team aren’t going to be quicker. Simple as that, because they have to press the button, which is why they get a head start based on how many people are in the final. If you’ve got three people in the final chase that’s a three step head start – that’s about a twelve second advantage."”
I had no idea that the head start was designed to compensate for time lost buzzing in. I thought it was just there as an added bonus. But it make sense. But really teams who dither about and waste time waiting for somebody to buzz in and pass have only themselves to blame. As I have said before, the team should appoint a Captain (the best player) who takes care of guessing and passing. And that doesn't mean waiting for everybody else to signal that they don't know it - that's been tried before and it doesn't work. It takes too long.
It does take time to buzz in and wait for their name to be called, but I don't really see any other way they could do it. If they don't wait for their name you'd get two people that have buzzed in calling out the answer at the same time. It just wouldn't work.
Originally Posted by Sarahsaurus:
“I had no idea that the head start was designed to compensate for time lost buzzing in. I thought it was just there as an added bonus. But it make sense. But really teams who dither about and waste time waiting for somebody to buzz in and pass have only themselves to blame. As I have said before, the team should appoint a Captain (the best player) who takes care of guessing and passing. And that doesn't mean waiting for everybody else to signal that they don't know it - that's been tried before and it doesn't work. It takes too long.
It does take time to buzz in and wait for their name to be called, but I don't really see any other way they could do it. If they don't wait for their name you'd get two people that have buzzed in calling out the answer at the same time. It just wouldn't work.”
“I had no idea that the head start was designed to compensate for time lost buzzing in. I thought it was just there as an added bonus. But it make sense. But really teams who dither about and waste time waiting for somebody to buzz in and pass have only themselves to blame. As I have said before, the team should appoint a Captain (the best player) who takes care of guessing and passing. And that doesn't mean waiting for everybody else to signal that they don't know it - that's been tried before and it doesn't work. It takes too long.
It does take time to buzz in and wait for their name to be called, but I don't really see any other way they could do it. If they don't wait for their name you'd get two people that have buzzed in calling out the answer at the same time. It just wouldn't work.”
As was suggested in post #6039 (above) an indicator light would be an easy way to speed things up. The technology is there to ensure only one light can be lit at any time.
Originally Posted by StanTheOstrich:
“As was suggested in post #6039 (above) an indicator light would be an easy way to speed things up. The technology is there to ensure only one light can be lit at any time.”
“As was suggested in post #6039 (above) an indicator light would be an easy way to speed things up. The technology is there to ensure only one light can be lit at any time.”
I still don't think that would work. Even if only one light could be on a time and they told them, "Don't say your answer unless you see your light come on", I think they'd get far more wrong person answers that they do now, with people buzzing in and anticipating the light. Making them wait until they hear their name might be slightly slower but at least it's clear and there's few mistakes with the wrong person answering.
Originally Posted by Sarahsaurus:
“I still don't think that would work. Even if only one light could be on a time and they told them, "Don't say your answer unless you see your light come on", I think they'd get far more wrong person answers that they do now, with people buzzing in and anticipating the light. Making them wait until they hear their name might be slightly slower but at least it's clear and there's few mistakes with the wrong person answering.”
“I still don't think that would work. Even if only one light could be on a time and they told them, "Don't say your answer unless you see your light come on", I think they'd get far more wrong person answers that they do now, with people buzzing in and anticipating the light. Making them wait until they hear their name might be slightly slower but at least it's clear and there's few mistakes with the wrong person answering.”
I don't see why that should be the case. A light can come on the instant a buzzer is pressed and it would be directly in front of them. Press buzzer, see light, answer. Speeds things up tremendously.
Originally Posted by StanTheOstrich:
“I don't see why that should be the case. A light can come on the instant a buzzer is pressed and it would be directly in front of them. Press buzzer, see light, answer. Speeds things up tremendously.”
“I don't see why that should be the case. A light can come on the instant a buzzer is pressed and it would be directly in front of them. Press buzzer, see light, answer. Speeds things up tremendously.”
It sounds good in theory. I seriously doubt it would work in practice.
If people had their fingers on their buzzer just waiting for the light to come on so they can answer, it would be like a hair trigger. I suspect you'd regularly get people answering when their light hadn't come on. Or when the light for the player next to them came on, they would see the light come on out the corner of their eye and they're answering before they've even realised it wasn't their light.
I think there's every chance it would often end up a complete shambles. I could be wrong, though.
For all we know they may even have tried something like this at first at the pilot stage before the initial run of shows and rejected it.
242 of 368
