Cullen Bagget and David Poston review what constitutes new information and what we should do for rules. They discuss what the rules currently say, how we should apply them, and what the rule should be. Please email us at podcast@biblequizzer.net with your thoughts. Listen Now. WARNING, the whole podcast is over 35 minutes.
Comments 8
I agree with Cullen. I do think you should get more time is if it is the next word to be said in the question (“to” in this case) OR if relevant information is given. My question is: Would you still give a quizzer more time for finishing a word the quizmaster started to say, but didn’t finish?
Author
I think the rules are pretty clear that you should get more time for finishing a word. After all, you get an error for finishing it incorrectly.
I guess I was meaning for the proposed rule changes/clarifications. Sometimes the words that are finished are just as obvious as saying “to” after “according” and aren’t necessarily more relevant. Should that be adjusted as well, if saying the next word in the question wouldn’t be acceptable anymore?
The problem I have with your proposed rule change is “Who gets to choose what is relevant and what is not?”
Ruling if something is pertinent or not is not that difficult of a ruling, imo. Quizmasters are making judgment calls quite often. To expect them to judge between what is and what is not pertinent is not asking too much. Now, if some want to dictate (into the rules) specific examples of what is or what is not pertinent so as to protect consistency in the rulings, I am all for it.
It’s funny that Poston said American soccer should not use Premier League rules, when FIFA writes the rules for all of them. It also took the NFL over eight years to address the catch rule from Calvin Johnson’s first disputed catch to addressing the rule.
You might be shocked to know that the very structure of MLS is completely divergent from Fifa. MLS the outlaw
I know quizzers have received more time for finishing a word. For example, if the quizmaster were to say, “According to Titus 1:9, H….”. The quizzer knowing that he was starting to say “how” finishes the word and then gets the full 30 seconds because he was continuing the question. I don’t know that you could say that it is any more pertinent than finishing the next part of another question (as in the case of “according to”). It seems that the only way to clearly define what part of a question can be finished and still be pertinent information would be simply removing the option of finishing part of the question to get additional time. I don’t like that idea but it is less subjective than what seems to be the alternative presented.
As for having a whole set of rules different from AACS, it seems somewhat comparable to having the same rules throughout the football season and then different rules during the Super Bowl. Yes, not every team participates at Nationals but it is the last (and longest) quiz of the year spanning two days. It would be nice if the rules could be revised by the folks at AACS with input from those who spend a lot of time in the quiz world.