Talk:Reach for the Top
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
 |
A Television infobox needs to be added to this article, or the current one needs to be updated. For formatting information see the instructions. |
Adding information on Alberta broadcast on Access
Contents |
[edit] Types of questions: List
Since the questions alternate between teams, one team can gain a maximum of 30 points from one of these. The fact that the question is worth 50 is true, but I don't think it conveys the proper message. I'm not sure that it's an important enough distinction to warrant a more in-depth explanation. Any ideas? Peter T.S. 03:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, a team can gain 50 points if the opposition team fails to name a single part of the list. Example: Team A rings in correct. Team B fails to answer. Team A can then complete 4 more items of the list for the remaining 40 points. Andy Saunders 03:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It can also apply if the first team jumps in and fails to get the first right answer, thus giving the second team a chance to get all five in a row. Also, when your team gives a wrong answer, you're out for the rest of the question, and when the other team makes a mistake, the remaining answers are revealed by the host (unless for various reasons such as time running short those answers are not revealed). MapleLeafFan04 00:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestion: Spoiler Warnings
The local TV versions (and then the nationals) of "Reach for the Top" will be broadcasting soon (I believe the British Columbia season has already been taped), so I'm suggesting when the time comes a spoiler warning should be present. I fell victim to spoilers for the last two seasons (2003-04 and 2004-05; the latter for me didn't occur here but on the official "Reach" site). MapleLeafFan04 01:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stub for Reach for the Top
The reason I put a stub for Reach for the Top is because it still needs formatting typical for a TV series, pictures if there are some available and other details that might be found from other contributers to Wikipedia. Jeopardy should be used as a possible template. jdobbin 20:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Notable Teams
That section looks almost like a vanity subsection to me, especially the second paragraph. God_ofcoffee 17:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah the second part was a little much (and earlier versions were mostly nonsense anyway). The first part seems okay though. Adam Bishop 03:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The notable teams section should be expanded, perhaps with input from actual team members. A simple list doesn't do it justice. For example, the 1989-1990 team from Memorial High School was probably one of the strongest ever, yet merits only a quick listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.194.227 (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Memorial beat champions from the US in an exhibition match - that is notable. I believe the greatest team is either Lorne Jenkins of the 70s (7 consecutive national finals appearances and a mention in the Canadian Encyclopedia) or UTS of the modern era (6? nationals appearances coming out of the perennially-tough Ontario playoffs). --Bdsmith (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Trivia Citation
The show is indeed the longest running quiz show in Canada. In fact, it was one of the questions that was asked and answered correctly back in 2004 and aired on Canadian Learning Television.
[edit] Semantics
Reach for the Top is not primarily a game show. It is a competitive quiz league first, involving high schools from across Canada. The league experienced a long hiatus from television through much of the 80s and 90s, but it was still going strong. I was a member of the Saunders Secondary School team from 1994-98 but we never played a single televised match despite winning the nationals (sorry but I couldn't resist slipping that in). Anyways I am going to overhaul this page when I get a chance, unless there are any objections.
- —Muckapædia 14e Nov 2006, 16h46 (GMT+9h00)
[edit] Responding to the recent suggestion in the edit summary
I have to disagree with the suggestion made by the user in the recent edit summary. As Muckapedia says above, I feel that Reach is competitive quiz league first, television series second. If the league's champion has officially been declared, we should post it. Would you refrain from posting the outcome of a sporting event if it was tape-delayed six months? What do others think? Andy Saunders 11:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neg 5s?
I watched a match from the 06-07 Nationals and noticed that teams were deducted 5 points for interrupting the reader with an incorrect response. Is this a new league-wide rule (but doesn't appear on their website), or was it a one-time thing? In the past, Reach has introduced new rules (shootouts, relays, etc.) during the higher-level tournaments, not at the start of a year. --Bdsmith (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lisgar's "controversial" win
An anonymous edit said Lisgar's 2008 victory by 5 points was the result of a "controversial" decision. I removed it until I know what this "controversy" is. I am under the impression that the game was won as a result of too many point penalties by UTS- which is not controversial in itself. Even so, there are far worse controversies in Reach than just having the title in dispute. Bell students and Reach went to court in 1995 because Reach barred the defending champs from playing at provincials. --Bdsmith (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Response: The controversy was a result of a review of the tapes by the Reach for the Top officials as a result of a challenge from the UTS team. The issue was that it appeared as if a member of the UTS team buzzed in before the final horn, which would have allowed him to finish his answer. In the end, the judge's ruling was against this. Despite the ruling, many who attended the tournament continued to doubt the results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.51.2 (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Response 2: Regarding the "controversy", in the Final Snappers round the clock hits zero and the horn (which is manually activated) goes off one or two seconds afterwards. It's not audible on the studio floor because of the commotion that surrounds the final moments of the game, but on the tape the horn (which is more like a siren) does begin to sound a fraction of a second before the UTS team buzzes in. Diplomatic08 (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Response 3: Witnessing the event unfold from the perspective of the studio audience, the horn was indeed audible and the person in charge of sounding it timed it well so it would sound in sync with the end of the time. Even if in fact the time ended after the UTS player buzzed in,it does not change the fact that it was a highly difficult call. Furthermore, it caused plenty of doubts and questions to be voiced by the other teams that participated in the tournament which is why calling the win "controversial" is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.99.229 (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- The decision was not controversial. If the judges reviewed the tape, and decided in favour of Lisgar, it must have been a fair decision. Either way, the producers had little to lose either way. If it was on tape, and time ran out on tape, then its not controversial, it just what happened. Calling it controversial is hinting that something went wrong, or Lisgar played unfairly. It simply violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I'm not against explaining the facts (buzz in time/reviewing the tape), but calling it "controversial" is demeaning. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Calling it "controversial" without a reference is improper; I've removed it until a reference is added. Additionally, that is not the proper place in the article for mentioning any such controversy. Andy Saunders (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Response 4: I hope this post can put some final clarification on the call. There were 5 to 7 people in the booth who reviewed the tape, and carefully analyzed the timing of the horn -- which was NOT synched to the end of the clock. The siren begins very quietly and rises in volume (this is what the audience heard) ... the loudest point of the siren does occur after the UTS team buzzes in. However, the quietest part of the siren (which was inaudible to the crowd) began just a split second before UTS buzzed in. There may have been some confusion in the audience because 1) it happened so fast and 2) they did not see the replay in studio.
- However, from the position of the video review booth, this was a very easy decision to make (both the clock and the siren beat the buzz-in). Congratulations to both Lisgar and UTS ... they are great players who clearly earned their place in the National Championship. 64.229.177.96 (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, stop these asterisks. I can think of at least three other situations which could require an asterisk: 1989 Tagwi won because Mount Douglas was denied their answer of "cabbage" being the main ingredient of borscht - which is true for some varieties (Chinese, Mennonite); 1995 saw a qualifier (Lisgar) denied the chance to compete because Bell won their court injunction; 2001 Gloucester had a 20-year-old; etc. We don't need these asterisks. Lisgar won, and the timing issue was resolved in Edmonton. Why don't you argue that the Lisgar team was supposed to be in Chicago at the time...</sarcasm> --Bdsmith (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
