So, now that Weaver's Week has decided to stop publishing full UC reviews and give the scores only, I feel I ought to give my thoughts on some of the objections they have raised.
The first concerns penalties, specifically those imposed on Pembroke a couple of weeks ago. In both cases, the side were fined for interrupting just as Paxo was finishing the question. WW suggests that these penalties caused Pembroke to take their feet off the pedal, and allow Magdalen to run away in the final minutes.
Is that right? Possibly, yes. It would be the third series in a row that Pembroke have been undone by penalties; last year, they incurred three penalties in their first match, and fell just five short of the repechage, and the year before, they went out to our old friends King's by fifteen points in the QFs and incurred five penalties. While the claim about this year is arguable and unconfirmed, it's an unfortunate coincidence.
Of course, it's not Paxo's decision on borderline decisions; it's the producers, who give Paxo instructions via a hidden earpiece. I suppose that, while they do try to be fair, inconsistencies slip through occasionally, like the chemical elements incident earlier in the series.
The other, partly connected issue, concerns the starters, which WW claims have been too long, citing an example from this week's show that took half a minute, including an incorrect interruption. This is a fair point too; they also claim that long starters mean teams interrupt more often, and thus risk penalties more often.
As I never pay much attention to the length of the starters, I can't say I've noticed this much this series. I suppose, for me, it's how well the teams do with what they're given that's what I pay most attention too.
These issues are fair points, and WW aren't the only ones picking up on them; I've noticed some others, on Twitter and LAM, picking up on the 'harshness' of the Pembroke penalties as well. Of course, most TV shows are going to have inconsistent problems from time to time, but when you're talking about something controversial that people notice happening from time to time, it becomes more of a long term issue.
We shall just have to watch the rest of the series, and see if a pattern forms, or whether these are just one-off or rare incidents. I'll keep on reviewing the shows every week, whatever happens.
I'll be back with my usual review of tomorrow's show tomorrow evening.
Thanks for the thoughts. I found the penalties harsh but not necessarily unfair as I believed there must be a clear distinction between Paxman still reading out the question and having finished reading, even if that split of a second falls to the buzzing team's disadvantage? I might be wrong. Indeed unfortunate penalties for Pembroke, yet I still doubt whether this situation is to blame for any fear of the buzzers. Psychologically it is an interesting thought and a relevant point though.
ReplyDeleteAs for the question length; I presume, perhaps naively, that the length of each question naturally vary, with the onion questions taking up more time and encouraging interruption, but that the overall length of time spent on reading out questions would be roughly the same between the matches so that there is more or less the same number of questions up for grabs. Otherwise, the rule stating that the higher scoring teams get a second chance seems to be applied rather arbitrarily. Related to this is of course the question of how much time is given and spent on the bonuses. LSE's captain made a fair point on Twitter of them having faced slow teams twice, and I believe they have been asking themselves whether they would have done better in a faster-paced match.
In any case, in the first match of the second round Leicester is playing Trinity. Leicester tweeted that it is a tough draw. I bet Trinity feels the same based on how well Leicester did in Round 1.