This was the fourth time this contestant declared the exact target without being able to give the solution. Not surprising Nick was running out of patience.
The show's be going 40 years, each contestant has 30 seconds to arrive at an answer when asked...simple, not 45 seconds so someone can decipher what they have written down...whether they have the right answer or otherwise does not matter a jot...
@@BeasleyStreet While technically you’re right, in reality the 30 seconds is nominal & contestants have always taken advantage of the extra time to be had before & after the clock starts. For instance, they start composing answers to the letters as soon as each letter is called out. While with numbers, they can’t start until the target is revealed, the contestant would’ve had the time he needed to decipher what he had written down, if his opponent had been chosen first, there’s an extra 15-20 seconds there, that’s likely what he was banking on.
HaHaHa! The legal team is surely part of what Susie calls “upstairs”. They’re the guys who gave her a hard time when Nick referred to her “special spot”....
@@FusionGamerElite that's why each of them have 30 seconds to arrive at an answer and then give that answer when asked,not sorry I've not quite understood my workings out,hold on for a few more seconds while I try to work out where I have gone wrong...how can that be RIGHT,when the other contestant has given up his answer immediately.
The decision not to accept the solution was likely taken by the producer or member of the production team acting as the adjudicator. Unlikely to be Nick.
Really? Is Nick a participant? No, he just knew the rules and ways people try to get round them. Hardly the toughest thing in the world to adjudicate. "You took ages giving your answer, get out of here"
@@Neil_MALTHUS Nah he isn't a participant, he's not the shows producer or rule maker either. He like the few before him are just 'presenters' or 'hosts.' It isn't them who get the deciding say, it's the little voice they have in their earpiece that tells them what's allowed & what isn't.
"It's written down". Nick: "Ok buddy, pull your chair over and we'll both have a good look and try make sense of it. The rest of you grab a coffee and talk among yourselves till we're done".
He actually blurted out the correct answer at the end (except for subtracting the two ones). His notes were probably just a bit muddled and he got himself flustered.
I think he panicked while reading it out and thought he'd read it out wrong. Then realised it was right after all. Really not fair to not allow it when it's written down. It would be different if he had written something wrong down and he was trying to change it.
I have been a guest on Countdown. On the first numbers round, both my opponent and I declared the correct answer, and it was my opponent's turn to read out the calculation. As he went along, I could see that we had found the solution the same way, except at one point where he read aloud "multiplied" instead of "add". I double-checked my notes, and saw that my x and + looked identical (bad handwriting). Had it have been my turn to read aloud, I would have misspoken and got as flustered as this gentleman, not to mention not get the ten points. There but for the grace of God go I...
If it's written down, in a clear and fluent manner, it should be allowed. If it's a scrappy wreck of sums which don't appear to be one clear chain leading to the answer, then no. No doubt that the chap had it, the method he described was on target. But I suspect that he was connecting up the separate written down elements after the clock, which can't really be accepted. Tough call.
@@neerajpatel8529 that was stated in the original post. He likely had all the elements needed to answer it correctly. He just had them all over the place and confused himself. He had the answer and it was most likely written down. He just confused himself
@@michaeldick6227 Yes, I definitely agree. He just seemed like he'd gotten kerfuffled under pressure, but I can see that his train of thought was on target.
The rules were quite clear in the Numbers Game, once you've started you cannot take a long delay in giving out the solution otherwise you'll be disqualified for it! That's whether you've got the answer written down or not & if its not written down you must declare that before going any further!
@@mrman8541 that's something I had not considered...you make a good point, if the workings out were clear and in logical order then having them checked would have been fair..... but that's a big if?
I know it didn't happen this time, but this rules make it a bit unfair if both contestants declare the same answer and both have written it down, because the host will then arbitrarily choose one of them to give the solution first and the other one can rely on what he has written down (assuming what he has written down is the same as his opponent's method) without having to tell it to Rachel, on television under the lights under pressure. So if doing that is part of the game, fine, but it can introduce an extra element of luck. Given it's pre-recorded, if a producer came over and verified he had a correct solution written down clearly within the 30s, I don't see how the other player or anyone in the audience could seriously object if they just said "okay, you've got the right answer, we'll take it again darling" and gave the guy another chance to read it out. The fumbling needn't have gone out on television at all.
@@yesdcotchin yes but the 10 cats version always has innuendos or seemingly dirty words as the original phrase. For example: OHMYKNOB with the clue "often held by a priest" and the answer is Hymnbook. Whereas regular countdown doesn't have the dirty ones generally.
Just read your answer out. If you've messed up, admit you made a mistake and let's move on. If anything Nick gave him more time than he deserved. Also I did watch this episode back in the day, and this contestant had done this a number of times with numbers games. Just a chancer. Stick to the rules, no excuses!
I think the issue here was that he did write it down but he declared 246 but then his break down method actually came to 248. He said 7 x 4 = 28 then 28 + 3 = 31 and then 31 x 8 = 248 and that's maybe why he got confused because as he was explaining it, he probably realised that it might not have looked right.
If he has written it down and he got it than ... he got it. Don't underestimate the psychological effects of there being a live audience & also him being filmed... it makes plenty of people nervous whether they want it or not. Give the man a break.
Yes, you are exactly right. Nick was absolutely correct. The contestant was taking far too long. It doesn't matter whether or not it's written down. That's the rules.
I think if it was written down correctly then they should have accepted it. Simply because, if they had both gotten the same answer, the second player only has to show what he has written down.
If he had it written down correctly he should have been able to read it correctly. He was clearly trying to finish off the problem in that period which is not allowed and very unfair to the other contestant.
@@JohnGormleyJG he could have just misread it the first time and then felt the pressure and nerves of being on TV. If he was trying to finish the problem then, you're correct, it's against the rules. However, all they need to do is check his paper to see if that's the case. He said he had it written down, they should have just checked.
@@jonnyharding3646 doesn't matter. Its a fast paced game he spent way too long trying to explain it. It's only one round - if he was a consistently good player he could have made his points up elsewhere. The rules exist for a reason. At the end of the clock you are supposed to have a fully constructed answer and if you don't then no points. It's not an easy game, which is why the best contestants practice daily in online competitions. Can't have someone up there fumbling for an additional 30 seconds to start off his answer. That won't fly
@@JohnGormleyJG but if the other player had the same answer as him, he would only need to show his paper, so it doesn't take any additional time to do so. And if he had it written down correctly, that would mean that HE DID have a fully constructed answer when the time ran out, he just misread it.
@@jonnyharding3646 I'd say half the time when they show the other player their sheet they barely look at it. Probably most of the time they have it, but I doubt the other contestant properly examines their work. If he was just showing it to the other contestant I reckon he'd have gotten away with it, which wouldnt have been very fair since he clearly didn't have the answer here. If it was written down he would have just had to read his sheet, he started questioning himself once he started speaking, and said the 'I have it written down' just to buy himself more time.
Common tactic. Gamble, say you've got it and worry about it in the next few seconds. You see it quite often on a crucial conundrum. One contestant will just whack the buzzer after half a second and rely on the fact that they have another 3, 4, maybe even 5 seconds while the buzzer rings and the host says their name. It's funny when they naff it up and they're like "errrr, errrrr, errrrmmm... no I don't have it sorry" and the other player gets 29 seconds to solve it 😅
@@wschmrdr well you said you didn't see her do it implying you never watched the video. Maybe if you said you ' hadn't ' seen her do it your point would be better received.
you really can't take that long or else why even do the 30 seconds and the writing down, we can just do it in separate rooms. you have to deliver the solution you came to DURING the countdown
@@sovietonion72 Considering I got it the first time before the clock had finished counting down in the video, I'm going to say yes because 5 seconds < 30 seconds. Sometimes when watching this show I get the solution before the clock begins ticking. Watching it over again just now I got the same answer as Rachel this time. That's because I factor the number and its approximate targets that are reachable by adding or subtracting from the target (like 245) in light of the numbers on the board. It's not a fucking superpower. I really don't get what it is with people like you who have to go around attempting to delegitimize others' solutions. If you don't think you could do it, fine. You know your own abilities best. But that doesn't mean that the entire world should be measured by your incapability. Do you also comment on weightlifting videos where the people are lifting seemingly superhuman amounts of weight and telling them that they're actually faking it because you can't lift as much?
@@Isleofskye U. N. Owen. Happy to help. Do you consider this such a wildly improbable claim considering the simplicity of some of the numbers games on _Countdown_ ? I just watched one where _all_ the numbers games were disappointingly easy. First numbers round: 75 3 1 10 2 4 --> 426 Easy for anyone who knows that 3 x 2 = 6 and the target is 71 (i.e. 75 - 4) x 6. Second numbers round: 25 75 10 10 2 7 --> 555 75 x 7 is 525, so all you have to do is get 30 with a 25, two 10s, and a 2 on the board. Could hardly be simpler unless the target were a multiple of 100. So what was the third round's target? A multiple of 100: 25 2 4 4 8 1 --> 300. I'm not going to insult you by giving a solution to this. You can work it out on your own. And the fourth round was almost as easy: 100 50 10 6 8 5 --> 149. Is that supposed to puzzle me for 30 seconds?
probably yes, which is why the producers told nick to disqualify the answer. He made a mistake in his sums and was trying to fix it after the fact. Just because a guy holds up a piece of paper and says "I have it written down" doesn't mean he is correct.
The following episode contains graphic depictions of game-show injustices which some viewers may find disturbing. It is intended for mature audiences. Viewer discretion is advised.
He was making it awkard but he did get 246. He said 7x4 is 28 add 3 which is 31x by 8 which is 248 and it aint rocket science that he would use the two 1s to get to 246. If he had that written down then he should win regardless on how he talks under pressure.
Ridiculous. The solution/word being written down has long been sufficient in Countdown. Nick should have checked it was written down, and if it was he should have gotten the points.
7*4 = 28 28 +3 = 31 31 * 8 = 248 248 - 1 - 1 = 246 So, it could be got the way he said But it took me more than 3 minutes after he explained on air 'times 8'
The issue was he most likely had them written disorganized. He had it correct but he wrote it down all messy. It's common. I would write the problem down in parts and then just combine them to make sense.
No because if you allow delays to answers it opens up the possibility of cheating, people taking extra time and still working out their answer as they give it. This guy seemed genuine but others would take advantage.
I feel sorry for him. if you actually 'LISTEN' to what he is saying 7x4 plus 3 = 31 x 8 = 248. He then would have finished with -1 & -1= 246. He was correct but he had 30 seconds to do this complicated arithmetic & had probably written other stuff before it clicked. No cheating here, harsh!
“Seven times fffour No sorry, seven, I’ve written it dow- Oh, s- errr (inhales) Seven times four (places hand on forehead) No, eErrRrRrr, s-err-sorry Eight! Err.. Plus three, plus three, times eight. It’s written down.” (Holds up paper, chuckles and looks at host with hope) 7x4 (28) +3 (31) x8 isn’t 246 anyway 😆 It’s 248 Nice work David.
Can you solve the following 2 Number Conundrums to get the Target Answers?: 1. 4 - 7 - 4 - 3 - 5 - 100 Target: 282 NOTE! (I have not got the answer yet to the first one. Can you get the answer?) 2. 3 - 9 - 3 - 7 - 100 - 25 Target: 346
If it was written down in a clear coherant way then why did Nick the jobsworth refuse it? All they had to do was check the workings of his paper.......unless the old geezer jotted it fown and his pen run out of ink.
@@Isleofskye and to complete the analogy " Nick, behind the till, apologised profusely for not being able to serve him with a slight hint of sympathy" .
Or as the Deputy Managing Director said to me on the 28th May,1981 ( not that I am one to hold a grudge ) I have a "certain" sympathy for you having just tried to ruin my career, life and prospects in London. Didn't work though and 8 years later I became the first Guy ever to get a Redundancy which set up my future Businesses.....a certain sympathy...haha
