Spoilers for Friday 18th April 2025 (Series 91, Heat 75)

[John Garcia]

R5 - GODETIAS as an alt 8
R11 - PHONATE alt 7
R12 - COARSENS for 8

[Philip A]

Good and fair refereeing from Colin in Round 4.

[Gavin Chipper]

I've never seen anyone being timed out for delaying their declaration length before. I remember once previously (years ago) someone was agonising over it and said something like "Can't the other geezer declare first?" and the host (probably Whiteley) was like "Nah, mate - this is how it's done". The delay time would have been longer than today but he wasn't booted from the round. It seemed very harsh to me.

Edit - Just looking now. Colin says "Peter" at 11:11 to 11:12. Peter starts going "Er..." at 11:14 (so about 2 seconds delay). Colin says "Need a number" at 11:15. Peter starts saying "I'll risk" at 11:15 also (overlapping a bit with Colin), delays a bit and is timed out at 11:17. The delay that gets him timed out is less than a second. I think it was unnecessarily harsh personally.

[Fiona T]

I've never seen anyone being timed out for delaying their declaration length before. I remember once previously (years ago) someone was agonising over it and said something like "Can't the other geezer declare first?" and the host (probably Whiteley) was like "Nah, mate - this is how it's done". The delay time would have been longer than today but he wasn't booted from the round. It seemed very harsh to me.

Edit - Just looking now. Colin says "Peter" at 11:11 to 11:12. Peter starts going "Er..." at 11:14 (so about 2 seconds delay). Colin says "Need a number" at 11:15. Peter starts saying "I'll risk" at 11:15 also (overlapping a bit with Colin), delays a bit and is timed out at 11:17. The delay that gets him timed out is less than a second. I think it was unnecessarily harsh personally.

I agree - didn't seem like an undue delay and I was really surprised he wasn't allowed to declare. I suppose the small comfort is that he was going to declare his dodgy 9, so didn't affect scores.

[Howie Myers]

r 13 alt: CHOOFED

[David Williams]

I've never seen anyone being timed out for delaying their declaration length before. I remember once previously (years ago) someone was agonising over it and said something like "Can't the other geezer declare first?" and the host (probably Whiteley) was like "Nah, mate - this is how it's done". The delay time would have been longer than today but he wasn't booted from the round. It seemed very harsh to me.

Edit - Just looking now. Colin says "Peter" at 11:11 to 11:12. Peter starts going "Er..." at 11:14 (so about 2 seconds delay). Colin says "Need a number" at 11:15. Peter starts saying "I'll risk" at 11:15 also (overlapping a bit with Colin), delays a bit and is timed out at 11:17. The delay that gets him timed out is less than a second. I think it was unnecessarily harsh personally.

I agree - didn't seem like an undue delay and I was really surprised he wasn't allowed to declare. I suppose the small comfort is that he was going to declare his dodgy 9, so didn't affect scores.

I've always been on the other side of this question. People who ponder and then go "Hmm, I'll go for a risky seven". You don't get thinking time in addition to your 30 seconds. For all we know you didn't have anything. No hesitation at any time as far as I'm concerned.

Incidentally, when C2 needed a seven and had the unlikely ROACHED, why on earth didn't he risk it?

[Gavin Chipper]

I've never seen anyone being timed out for delaying their declaration length before. I remember once previously (years ago) someone was agonising over it and said something like "Can't the other geezer declare first?" and the host (probably Whiteley) was like "Nah, mate - this is how it's done". The delay time would have been longer than today but he wasn't booted from the round. It seemed very harsh to me.

Edit - Just looking now. Colin says "Peter" at 11:11 to 11:12. Peter starts going "Er..." at 11:14 (so about 2 seconds delay). Colin says "Need a number" at 11:15. Peter starts saying "I'll risk" at 11:15 also (overlapping a bit with Colin), delays a bit and is timed out at 11:17. The delay that gets him timed out is less than a second. I think it was unnecessarily harsh personally.

I agree - didn't seem like an undue delay and I was really surprised he wasn't allowed to declare. I suppose the small comfort is that he was going to declare his dodgy 9, so didn't affect scores.

I've always been on the other side of this question. People who ponder and then go "Hmm, I'll go for a risky seven". You don't get thinking time in addition to your 30 seconds. For all we know you didn't have anything. No hesitation at any time as far as I'm concerned.

Incidentally, when C2 needed a seven and had the unlikely ROACHED, why on earth didn't he risk it?

I'd say the 30 seconds is to find words, not to decide on your declaration. After all, the person declaring second can base their decision on the length of the first declaration, and that clearly isn't decided within the 30 seconds. But primarily, I'd say the problem is that there's no precedent for it, and as far as I know, no reason to suspect he would be timed out (unless new instructions have been given). Agonising over declarations has always been a thing.

But yeah, should have gone for ROACHED.

[Philip A]

I agree - didn't seem like an undue delay and I was really surprised he wasn't allowed to declare. I suppose the small comfort is that he was going to declare his dodgy 9, so didn't affect scores.

I've always been on the other side of this question. People who ponder and then go "Hmm, I'll go for a risky seven". You don't get thinking time in addition to your 30 seconds. For all we know you didn't have anything. No hesitation at any time as far as I'm concerned.

Incidentally, when C2 needed a seven and had the unlikely ROACHED, why on earth didn't he risk it?

I'd say the 30 seconds is to find words, not to decide on your declaration. After all, the person declaring second can base their decision on the length of the first declaration, and that clearly isn't decided within the 30 seconds. But primarily, I'd say the problem is that there's no precedent for it, and as far as I know, no reason to suspect he would be timed out (unless new instructions have been given). Agonising over declarations has always been a thing.

But yeah, should have gone for ROACHED.

Sorry but I’m with David on this one. He took 5 seconds to bid, which is too long. It’s called fudging. I think this, having fudged a conundrum on my 4th game and was informed by Mr Eadie in the green room that this was “ethically cheating.” They let me off, but just that once. On finals day he warned us, “no fudging.” So I was more certain from then on.

Indeed, SMEARING and ROACHED would have made the conundrum crucial!

If he was let off and then went on to win, it would have been much worse for the game IMHO. I think Colin did the right thing.

[Gavin Chipper]

Taking too long gets you disqualified because it could be fudging but it isn't necessarily. I wouldn't call it fudging if he was just trying to decide between two words he already had.

[John Garcia]

In hindsight it clearly wasn't fudging, but whilst watching it I (wrongly) thought the challenger was fudging. The point is the viewer, opponent and Colin have no idea whether the person is fudging or not, so I think this was good refereeing. I also thought the discussion afterwards made clear that the challenger wasn't trying to gain any kind of advantage, so no stain on his reputation.

[Countdown Team]

Happily stand by the decision to time him out.
Once the clock is over, it's over - and he stretched things a little too far.
I wasn't Colin's decision, he's told by the producer.

[Philip A]

Happily stand by the decision to time him out.
Once the clock is over, it's over - and he stretched things a little too far.
I wasn't Colin's decision, he's told by the producer.

I did wonder if he was told in his ear. And if it makes you feel any better I actually agree with the call.