Page 1 of 1
Spoilers for Thursday 4th March 2021 (Series 83, Preliminary 44)
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 7:37 pm
by Gavin Chipper
I sometimes think Colin says odd things as a host. When the champion declared his spot-on target in one of the rounds (I think it was the 368 one), he started saying 468 but corrected it midway, and Colin said that if he'd said the whole thing he'd have to take that. That's never been a thing. Compare that with
this.
Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:49 pm
I was amazed they allowed that declaration of 569.
"57...560"
Nick: "ish"
"569"
Also, when DC got FUGLIER, he said that things were looking fugly for the challenger. I think he is worse than Nick at doing this sort of thing, and this was always one of the main criticisms of Nick, especially in the early days.
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 4th March 2021 (Series 83, Preliminary 44)
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 10:37 pm
by Rhys Benjamin
Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 7:37 pm
I sometimes think Colin says odd things as a host. When the champion declared his spot-on target in one of the rounds (I think it was the 368 one), he started saying 468 but corrected it midway, and Colin said that if he'd said the whole thing he'd have to take that. That's never been a thing. Compare that with
this.
Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:49 pm
I was amazed they allowed that declaration of 569.
"57...560"
Nick: "ish"
"569"
Also, when DC got FUGLIER, he said that things were looking fugly for the challenger. I think he is worse than Nick at doing this sort of thing, and this was always one of the main criticisms of Nick, especially in the early days.
The former was, IMO, correct from Colin.
The latter was a joke based on FUGLIER, whereas Nick has never really done wordplay like that.
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 4th March 2021 (Series 83, Preliminary 44)
Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:52 am
by Howie Myers
ri alt: COUPLERS
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 4th March 2021 (Series 83, Preliminary 44)
Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:27 am
by Gavin Chipper
Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 10:37 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 7:37 pm
I sometimes think Colin says odd things as a host. When the champion declared his spot-on target in one of the rounds (I think it was the 368 one), he started saying 468 but corrected it midway, and Colin said that if he'd said the whole thing he'd have to take that. That's never been a thing. Compare that with
this.
Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:49 pm
I was amazed they allowed that declaration of 569.
"57...560"
Nick: "ish"
"569"
Also, when DC got FUGLIER, he said that things were looking fugly for the challenger. I think he is worse than Nick at doing this sort of thing, and this was always one of the main criticisms of Nick, especially in the early days.
The former was, IMO, correct from Colin.
It would be, as far as I'm aware, without precedent on the show. And these things shouldn't be subject to the whims of the particular host.
The latter was a joke based on FUGLIER, whereas Nick has never really done wordplay like that.
I get the joke. But I think it was poor and came across really badly.
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 4th March 2021 (Series 83, Preliminary 44)
Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2021 7:37 pm
by David Williams
A couple of weeks ago we had something like "4+8=12. Oh, (pause) er, no, that's another one. 75*8=600 . . ." Would Colin have allowed that? I somehow doubt it.
At the time I sort of thought that starting "4+8" and correcting yourself is OK, but once you've said "=12" you've passed the point of no return. A bit like pressing "Enter". The 4 and 8 are gone.
Re: Spoilers for Thursday 4th March 2021 (Series 83, Preliminary 44)
Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2021 9:40 pm
by Gavin Chipper
David Williams wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 7:37 pm
A couple of weeks ago we had something like "4+8=12. Oh, (pause) er, no, that's another one. 75*8=600 . . ." Would Colin have allowed that? I somehow doubt it.
At the time I sort of thought that starting "4+8" and correcting yourself is OK, but once you've said "=12" you've passed the point of no return. A bit like pressing "Enter". The 4 and 8 are gone.
I think it was
this game -
recap.
I'm not sure though. Quite often the contest doesn't even bother with the "equals" and Rachel works it out, so where is the cut-off in that case? Is it fair for someone to lose out for not making Rachel do their work for them? James Martin corrects himself in the famous 4-large solve
here. Go to about 1:25. He doesn't say "equals" though.