c4countdown

The final week of the 16th Championship of Champions begins with two quarter-final matchups – both between players whose records read 12 wins out of 12. Today, Ahmed Mohamed faces off Luke Johnson-Davies in a difficult-to-call clash of the titans. One man goes through, the other must relinquish their unbeaten record today. What a showdown!

Highly anticipated game this one. With Elliott gone, whoever wins this becomes strong favourite.

Susie apparently wearing an Arsenal training top.

No R11 declarations? I had DOUGLAS.

Bradley Horrocks wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:45 pm No R11 declarations? I had DOUGLAS.

So did both players, presumably edited out because it's a slur

Ah, that I did not know. No surprise it didn't make the edit then. Thank you

"dougla
Caribbean (chiefly Trinidad, Tobago, and Guyana). Sometimes (especially in early use) considered derogatory or offensive"

Probably countdown need a way of dealing with words they don't want to broadcast that doesn't leave the viewer scratching their head - not sure how you'd do that tho!

It felt like Luke had to get that 6S to make a game of it but can certainly understand the slip up given the pressure! Two pro players, congrats to Ahmed for coming out on top.

Alt last numbers (4+9)x5x10+100+1=751.
Ahmed could saved a number in third numbers by making 7 from 5+2 not 10-3.

Wow. I always just thought DOUGLAS meant the Douglas Fir tree. One of those massive redwood evergreens that you see in northern California. And in the game Myst.

Does the bleep machine need new batteries?

Without opening a can of worms, where do you draw the line about what is broadcastable and what is not?

Should it be anything with the "derogatory" tag? Pretty sure I've seen giaours declared and that seems to have one.

Given the state of Channel 4 these days (and bearing in mind what they did with ASSWIPE a few years ago) I imagine someone higher-up is being over-zealous with the censorship scissors.

Is the “producer’s playback” still a thing? In the BBC past a show’s producer had to sit down and show their final edit to the channel’s boss.

A far cry from WANKER being unexpurgated in 2003.

Life moves on. The answer that was cut was the sole maximum so their answers couldn’t be replaced in the moment. Attitudes are changing hence why vulgarities and slurs which were uncensored in past games can’t even make the cut let alone bleeped out. They don’t even let FANNIES make the cut anymore.

Slurs were completely removed from English Scrabble lexicons in light of events in 2020, and now as of last week French Scrabble is following suit. Censorship appears to has stepped up to reflect changing times, and this isn’t an issue at all for me. There are TV shows that can’t even be repeated anymore. Life moves on and we can choose to live with it. Can’t see the bleeper ever coming back on Countdown.

Still, in spirit of the rules of Countdown, if it’s in the dictionary then it counts. I think other quiz shows re-film ‘correct’ answers as well.

Congratulations, Ahmed: perfect letters performance, which very few would have an answer to. The game could have swung on the 6-small challenge of retaining the 1 to deduct from 92*9, but Ahmed was just on fire and won it with two rounds to spare. Many commiserations to Luke – no doubt a kinder draw would have seen you progress further.

And I hate to say it. But this Championship now looks like a foregone conclusion.

The fact the selection wasn’t refilmed leads me to believe it wasn’t picked up until the edit that it had a dodgy meaning. They could have refilmed -DG+XH to give GOULASH as a darrenic 7.

The famous example is when Jack Hurst when for SHITFACE, which became HARDIEST after a retake.

Also yes it’s likely Ahmed to win now but I’m not discounting Adam.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 6:56 pm The fact the selection wasn’t refilmed leads me to believe it wasn’t picked up until the edit that it had a dodgy meaning.

No, Susie defined it at the time, and mentioned it was offensive

Sam Cappleman-Lynes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 6:58 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 6:56 pm The fact the selection wasn’t refilmed leads me to believe it wasn’t picked up until the edit that it had a dodgy meaning.

No, Susie defined it at the time, and mentioned it was offensive

I don’t think that changes what I said though - they must have thought it would still air.

Great game, especially from Ahmed. Even with Ahmed's max on the letters, Luke could have led going into the conundrum if he'd got both those numbers, but the conundrum solve made that irrelevant. Ahmed definitely favourite now, but if seedings were a thing, James Haughton would be the highest seed remaining (going by xicount totals).

Edit - It would have been one of the all-time great games if Luke had got those two numbers and the rest gone the same.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:57 pm "dougla
Caribbean (chiefly Trinidad, Tobago, and Guyana). Sometimes (especially in early use) considered derogatory or offensive"

Probably countdown need a way of dealing with words they don't want to broadcast that doesn't leave the viewer scratching their head - not sure how you'd do that tho!

I'd say broadcast it really and just explain. But one could think it might be a Scottish slur, in the singular!

Are we going down a slippery s***e with slur words.
I mean words like pig, vermin, elephant, faggot, queer are all potentially offensive to some

Cracking game guys, both played brilliantly. Very well done Ahmed, and commiserations Luke. LIFERENT was a beautiful spot by both. And nice solve in R14 Luke.

R3 LNAFP: 3*6*10-2/2 = 179
R9 Alt.: (5+2)*75+(10-2)*3 = 549
R14 Alt.: ((9-4)*10+100)*5+1 = 751

They should rename the show Woke-down and be done with it! The Daily Mail will be hearing about this! I blame the snowflake millennials! Pass the gammon!

Martin Hurst wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 10:20 pm They should rename the show Woke-down and be done with it!

I mean, it is Channel 4...

DOUGLA is apparently sometimes derogatory, whereas GIAOUR is always derogatory. GIAOUR last appeared as a losing declaration in the Grand Final only six months ago, so could easily have been cut or re-filmed, but wasn't.

Over the years I've learned that many things I think of now as obvious, probably weren't anything like as obvious to me at one time if I'm being perfectly honest. I have a feeling this is one of those things.

Welcome to the final week of the Championship of Champions XVI, and what a way to nearly wrap up by inviting the host of another game show, !mpossible, Rick Edwards to come on. Today is a huge day for both players, for both have defeated the one half of the Cappleman-Lynes each in their Series and now they're facing off each other and like I said before, both are good in their own ways. "Play your best" as Colin mentions, and it will really be a shame to lose someone here since Ahmed and Luke are close to each other in the community. I'm sure this will be a good match to chase the Monday blues away!

Letters: Well done to both by getting nines in R1, but hold on, another nine in R2??!! Holy moly! That is excellent and we're in for a tight match I suppose! Ahmed then spots AMBRIENE to beat Luke's BREYANI in R4 as well as having WAREHOU in R5 to tie him. Afterwards, it was the both of them hitting maximums all the way until R12 with great spots such as ALAZONS in R10, DOUGLAS in R11 (although the Countdown/Channel 4 censors would not allow that on the airwaves!) and LIFERENT in R12! Then, with one last "kick", Ahmed beats Luke with JUDOIST in R13 to secure his place in the Semi-Finals. Good play all round!

Numbers: Looks like Ahmed wants a nice and easy match, so his usual 1 Large applies! There we go, gentle start to take us into the first break with 46 a piece, the highest possible score by then and guess what, this is the first time ever that both contestants have that, history!! Next, Luke in R6 wants to throw Ahmed off with 6 Small but oh no! He sees the target wrongly and has an incorrect method, allowing Ahmed to get ahead further! Ahmed still wants his 1 Large and R9 wasn't difficult for a Championship match to me (although some in the Daily Chat said not really), and Luke blanks! Oh boy, the pressure has gotten to him. By R14, with Luke losing, he goes for 1 Large and I can see why A twist as Ahmed misses (but it wouldn't have mattered anyway) and he gets the target, making this the second double century game in the Championship, fabulous!

Conundrum: Finally, after one week of miserable, insane, hard conundrums I couldn't even get and/or know (maybe some of us are screaming internally already? Idk), this one clicked quite quickly for me I'm happy to say. Ahmed buzzes in so fast he says NICOTIANA without hesitation and breaks the streak of unsolved conundrums at long last! Well done, at least that made up for the miss in R14 just before!

Poor Luke, and with that all three 1000-point club players taking part in this Championship are out; it shows that just because you are the best in terms of points at the time doesn't mean you will definitely come out top here But, that being said, you have a plethora of achievements that I'm sure will be extremely difficult to beat for years to come. You not only have the highest Xicount total in Countdown history, but also being one of a few people who have NEVER scored below 100 points for every single game. And let's not mention the maximum game you achieved in your first Quarter-Final, the first in six years at the time plus having to wait out nearly a whole year thanks to COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions just to return to a very different atmosphere. I'm sure your resilience has partially motivated some post-COVID lockdown players to come on the show and you truly are another GOAT, no one can deny that. Hope you cheer the best you can for Ahmed come Thursday when he's back albeit in your seat!

Well, tomorrow won't be the end of a pair of Grand Champions facing each other since Dan and Ahmed play each other on Thursday. Even more to ponder about, if Florence wins on Wednesday and Ahmed on Thursday, it will be a Series 84 Grand Final rematch! But, that will depend on who goes through to face the former and more importantly, the outcomes of both Semi-Finals. It's the battle of the remaining odd Series Grand Champions, James and Adam next! Let's see who is the better half!

Progress:
Preliminary 1 (02 January 2023): Florence Cappleman-Lynes (Series 84 Runner-Up) vs Leo Smith (Series 82 Semi-Finalist) (100 - 69)
Preliminary 2 (03 January 2023): Dinos Sfyris (Series 80 Grand Champion) vs Elliott Mellor (Series 80 Runner-Up) (88 - 110)
Preliminary 3 (04 January 2023): Ahmed Mohamed (Series 84 Grand Champion) vs Edward Byrne (Series 86 Runner-Up) (121 - 76)
Preliminary 4 (05 January 2023): Stu Harkness (Series 84 Semi-Finalist) vs James Haughton (Series 81 Grand Champion) (97 - 111)
Preliminary 5 (06 January 2023): Tom Stevenson (Series 86 Grand Champion) vs Adam Latchford (Series 83 Grand Champion) (95 - 97)
Preliminary 6 (09 January 2023): Martin May (Series 79 Runner-Up) vs Luke-Johnson Davies (Series 82 Grand Champion) (90 - 117)
Preliminary 7 (10 January 2023): Steve Hyde (Series 85 Semi-Finalist) vs Dan Byrom (Series 85 Grand Champion) (70 - 108)
Preliminary 8 (11 January 2023): Matt O'Connor (Series 85 Runner-Up) vs Sam Cappleman-Lynes (Series 82 Runner-Up) (78 - 101)
Quarter-Finals 1 (12 January 2023): Florence Cappleman-Lynes (Preliminary 1 Winner) vs Sam Cappleman-Lynes (Preliminary 8 Winner) (95 - 93)
Quarter-Finals 2 (13 January 2023): Elliott Mellor (Preliminary 2 Winner) vs Dan Byrom (Preliminary 7 Winner) (102 - 106)
Quarter-Finals 3 (16 January 2023): Ahmed Mohamed (Preliminary 3 Winner) vs Luke Johnson-Davies (Preliminary 6 Winner) (132 - 100)
Quarter-Finals 4 (17 January 2023): James Haughton (Preliminary 4 Winner) vs Adam Latchford (Preliminary 5 Winner)
Semi-Finals 1 (18 January 2023): Florence Cappleman-Lynes (Quarter-Finals 1 Winner) vs (Quarter-Finals 4 Winner)
Semi-Finals 2 (19 January 2023): Dan Byrom (Quarter-Finals 2 Winner) vs Ahmed Mohamed (Quarter-Finals 3 Winner)
Championship Final (20 January 2023): (Semi-Finals 1 Winner) vs (Semi-Finals 2 Winner)

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 11:51 pm

Martin Hurst wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 10:20 pm They should rename the show Woke-down and be done with it!

I mean, it is Channel 4...

It would have been cut on any channel IMO.

Philip A wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 8:52 am [quote="Rhys Benjamin" post_id=204140 time=<a href="tel:1673913096">1673913096</a> user_id=14936]
[quote="Martin Hurst" post_id=204138 time=<a href="tel:1673907624">1673907624</a> user_id=85118]
They should rename the show Woke-down and be done with it!

I mean, it is Channel 4...
[/quote]

It would have been cut on any channel IMO.
[/quote]

It’s a channel which publicly mocked complaints, has a far-left news output, and has just commissioned a show about poo.

Well Done Ahmed for a stunning performance today. Brilliant to beat Luke by the margin he did. It was a great performance by Luke too and I think against any other player without the pressure he's not making those mistakes on the numbers and winning the game.

Surely with words such as DOUGLAS, GIAOURS (and other derogatory terms), it is best to let the players declare them, actually televise them and let Susie explain why they are derogatory. This would serve an educational purpose and, in my view, would be better than just editing the words out.

Martin Long wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:14 pm Surely with words such as DOUGLAS, GIAOURS (and other derogatory terms), it is best to let the players declare them, actually televise them and let Susie explain why they are derogatory. This would serve an educational purpose and, in my view, would be better than just editing the words out.

It’s dangerous. The potential for harm is if it receives backlash from even one person/organisation on social media then they could have to withdraw the episode completely from All4. iPlayer had to withdraw an episode of Only Connect after a caption was criticised by a charity on Twitter. They’ve since reuploaded it, but edited. It could also be a legal issue. Television is fickle.

They should just reshoot like they did with Jack's SHITFACE round in the past. Doesn't matter if you yourself don't find a problem with hearing a derogatory term does it? The whole point of something being labelled derogatory is that it will affect certain members of the demographics in question when they hear it. Susie stated it was a slur after me and Luke declared it(we didn't know it what it meant), and so after that I was left thinking about myself declaring a slur on TV which did affect me(and probably Luke as well) a bit.

There's no reason why it can't be reshot.

Ahmed M wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:38 pm They should just reshoot like they did with Jack's SHITFACE round in the past. Doesn't matter if you yourself don't find a problem with hearing a derogatory terms does it? The whole point of something being labelled derogatory is that it will affect certain members of the demographics in question when they hear it. Susie stated it was a slur after me and Luke declared it(we didn't know it what it meant), and so after that I was left thinking about myself declaring a slur on TV which did affect me a bit.

There's no reason why it can't be reshot.

The slur was the darren, so maybe they couldn’t have reshot it with an alternative 7?

Philip A wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:44 pm

Ahmed M wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:38 pm They should just reshoot like they did with Jack's SHITFACE round in the past. Doesn't matter if you yourself don't find a problem with hearing a derogatory terms does it? The whole point of something being labelled derogatory is that it will affect certain members of the demographics in question when they hear it. Susie stated it was a slur after me and Luke declared it(we didn't know it what it meant), and so after that I was left thinking about myself declaring a slur on TV which did affect me a bit.

There's no reason why it can't be reshot.

The slur was the darren, so maybe they couldn’t have reshot it with an alternative 7?

Jack's SHITFACE round was a darren, so they definitely do have a solution for it

Martin Long wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:14 pm Surely with words such as DOUGLAS, GIAOURS (and other derogatory terms), it is best to let the players declare them, actually televise them and let Susie explain why they are derogatory. This would serve an educational purpose and, in my view, would be better than just editing the words out.

I'm sorry but this is just so stupid. Why even take the risk when there is nothing to gain. It's very little effort to scrap a round and redo it so the points are the same for the players. This is what should have happened but it didn't.

1) Rachel recently received an MBE for her efforts to combat antisemitism. I am sure if dougla was a derogatory term for a Jewish person then this round would have been re-shot.
2) Heather Small was DC guest last week and she has Caribbean ancestry. Would they really have just tried to get away with broadcasting the word and definition if she was there in the studio with them.

It should not take a person in the room being offended to make the team realise that the word shouldn't be broadcast and the round should be redone.

Ahmed M wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:45 pm

Philip A wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:44 pm

Ahmed M wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:38 pm They should just reshoot like they did with Jack's SHITFACE round in the past. Doesn't matter if you yourself don't find a problem with hearing a derogatory terms does it? The whole point of something being labelled derogatory is that it will affect certain members of the demographics in question when they hear it. Susie stated it was a slur after me and Luke declared it(we didn't know it what it meant), and so after that I was left thinking about myself declaring a slur on TV which did affect me a bit.

There's no reason why it can't be reshot.

The slur was the darren, so maybe they couldn’t have reshot it with an alternative 7?

Jack's SHITFACE round was a darren, so they definitely do have a solution for it

Maybe they didn’t reshoot to save time. Practices aren’t done consistently, I’ve noticed. They’ve done all kinds of ways to reshoot.

JackHurst wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:47 pm

Martin Long wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:14 pm Surely with words such as DOUGLAS, GIAOURS (and other derogatory terms), it is best to let the players declare them, actually televise them and let Susie explain why they are derogatory. This would serve an educational purpose and, in my view, would be better than just editing the words out.

I'm sorry but this is just so stupid. Why even take the risk when there is nothing to gain. It's very little effort to scrap a round and redo it so the points are the same for the players. This is what should have happened but it didn't.

1) Rachel recently received an MBE for her efforts to combat antisemitism. I am sure if dougla was a derogatory term for a Jewish person then this round would have been re-shot.
2) Heather Small was DC guest last week and she has Caribbean ancestry. Would they really have just tried to get away with broadcasting the word and definition if she was there in the studio with them.

It should take a person in the room being offended to make the team realise that the word shouldn't be broadcast and the round should be redone.

100% this.

As I said earlier, could also be a legal issue.

Ahmed M wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:45 pm

Philip A wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:44 pm

Ahmed M wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:38 pm They should just reshoot like they did with Jack's SHITFACE round in the past. Doesn't matter if you yourself don't find a problem with hearing a derogatory terms does it? The whole point of something being labelled derogatory is that it will affect certain members of the demographics in question when they hear it. Susie stated it was a slur after me and Luke declared it(we didn't know it what it meant), and so after that I was left thinking about myself declaring a slur on TV which did affect me a bit.

There's no reason why it can't be reshot.

The slur was the darren, so maybe they couldn’t have reshot it with an alternative 7?

Jack's SHITFACE round was a darren, so they definitely do have a solution for it

Leaving aside the issue of "where do you draw the line?", all of this suggests they thought it was going to make it to air. -DG+HX = GOULASH as a darrenic 7, so it's possible.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:58 pm

Ahmed M wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:45 pm

Philip A wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:44 pm

The slur was the darren, so maybe they couldn’t have reshot it with an alternative 7?

Jack's SHITFACE round was a darren, so they definitely do have a solution for it

Leaving aside the issue of "where do you draw the line?", all of this suggests they thought it was going to make it to air. -DG+HX = GOULASH as a darrenic 7, so it's possible.

Susie explicitly said it was a slur at the time so not sure why they'd think it'd make it to air

Philip A wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:51 pm

JackHurst wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:47 pm

Martin Long wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:14 pm Surely with words such as DOUGLAS, GIAOURS (and other derogatory terms), it is best to let the players declare them, actually televise them and let Susie explain why they are derogatory. This would serve an educational purpose and, in my view, would be better than just editing the words out.

I'm sorry but this is just so stupid. Why even take the risk when there is nothing to gain. It's very little effort to scrap a round and redo it so the points are the same for the players. This is what should have happened but it didn't.

1) Rachel recently received an MBE for her efforts to combat antisemitism. I am sure if dougla was a derogatory term for a Jewish person then this round would have been re-shot.
2) Heather Small was DC guest last week and she has Caribbean ancestry. Would they really have just tried to get away with broadcasting the word and definition if she was there in the studio with them.

It should take a person in the room being offended to make the team realise that the word shouldn't be broadcast and the round should be redone.

100% this.

As I said earlier, could also be a legal issue.

Sorry my original post contained a very important typo.

It definitely *should not* take a person in the room being offended for them to realise the need to reshoot the round.

Ahmed M wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 10:01 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:58 pm

Ahmed M wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:45 pm

Jack's SHITFACE round was a darren, so they definitely do have a solution for it

Leaving aside the issue of "where do you draw the line?", all of this suggests they thought it was going to make it to air. -DG+HX = GOULASH as a darrenic 7, so it's possible.

Susie explicitly said it was a slur at the time so not sure why they'd think it'd make it to air

Guess it's a "where do you draw the line" question - someone must have assumed it would make it to air, and someone in post-production intervened. As you say they would have probably re-shot it had it been something more "obvious", if you like (I don't need to list a load of slurs here which would undoubtedly be re-shot).

If I'm on the floor and a contestant declares BATTY, I wouldn't think to order a retake. BATTY can be used a homophobic slur, but I'd be very surprised if that got cut as its most-well-known meaning is bonkers, mad, insane, etc. If that were to be cut, I can imagine someone writing an awkward letter to Surrey.

I mean, we've discussed before the difference between using a word and mentioning it, and I think making something unutterable is more likely to give it power if anything. The word has also been mentioned and quoted by people in this thread seemingly to no-one's offence.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 10:28 pm I mean, we've discussed before the difference between using a word and mentioning it, and I think making something unutterable is more likely to give it power if anything. The word has also been mentioned and quoted by people in this thread seemingly to no-one's offence.

Sorry, but that's bollocks. Why would any word be a slur if it didn't already have power? Words inherently have power.

Ahmed M wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 10:35 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 10:28 pm I mean, we've discussed before the difference between using a word and mentioning it, and I think making something unutterable is more likely to give it power if anything. The word has also been mentioned and quoted by people in this thread seemingly to no-one's offence.

Sorry, but that's bollocks. Why would any word be a slur if it didn't already have power? Words inherently have power.

But you can give it more power.

In the end, it’s a daytime entertainment programme that does its best to entertain the masses for 225 days of the year and there’s 1,001 ways to film, re-film and edit shots. The way they re-took my recordings may be different to past and future recordings. In TV, they just don’t do the exact same practices every single time. They just do what they do on the day. There’s so much to do.

Interesting.

Whenever someone comes on and politely makes a sensible point about the folly of censorship, some hysterical wokey (hi lads!) shuts them down as "stupid" or "talking bollocks". Seems like an overly defensive/volatile reaction. Perhaps this is because, deep down, ye know ye are on the side of evil? And that in years to come, when people look back on this, your opinions will be the ones seen as laughable?
Just one theory.

My take: it shouldn't have been edited out at all.
When I googled the word, it was very difficult to find more than one source where it was listed as derogatory. And even when it was listed as such, it was specifically noted as "considered offensive in the past", so: not anymore. Poor call by (an obviously rattled since POOFTER-gate) CD team.