What if… one would play the goal stop game with a commentator?
And what would come out of it? Torstopp – yes, I remember that. Do you? You see a scene in its creation, you see the finish, you see the ball flying and the goalkeeper diving. But then: Film break. A provoked film break. The picture stops. Now the candidate has to guess: is it going in or not? Goal or no goal?
The scenes selected for the game in the past were mostly extremely curious scenes. The idea was to give the candidates a “tough nut to crack”. So the assumption was obvious: they even tried to put him in. Those who knew the game probably guessed exactly the opposite to the picture view. “You can see that the ball goes in 100%. The keeper can never get to it!” The consequence? I’m guessing, “No goal!” “Right.”
Or vice versa, the suspicion that it can never go in, two meters past the box, then I guess that it goes in. Ooch richtich.
Even if the proposed game here is already a kind of “trap game”, then in no case one of the earlier design. In order to clarify this, a conceivable experimental setup should be described, which could make this game tingly. The whole thing would have to go something like this:
There are the usual five Bundesliga games on Saturday afternoon, starting at 15:30. Perhaps the Sky conference is switched on as a “prelude”. In this conference, one should assume that there are a few goals to see, but that there are just as a few missed chances. It would even be possible to subdivide the game into two parts – without influencing the game at first – that there was a successful defensive action that thwarted the goal, or, alternatively, that it was a great chance in which the striker was unable to use the ball, perhaps hitting the crossbar or post, or even missing the ball.
By the way, it is very important for the experimental setup that the active speakers, who are assigned to the conference, do not know anything about the fact that an experiment is being conducted here. In other words, they comment exactly as they have learned and do every day.
Now, directly after this conference, a few selected ones are cut together – they can be all the ones that come into consideration, goal chances or goals. The commentary can be switched loudly or quietly, this only once for safety’s sake here mentioned.
However, there is also a parallel event. This looks like this: a few of the reporters, who are not assigned to a particular day, are also called together. But not that they would have any form of participation in it. Exactly the opposite. They are deliberately cut off from the action for the duration of the broadcast. A good two hours, preferably with champagne and caviar – so not “jail” — but importantly, access to scores and results is prevented. No cell phones, no Internet, no TV, no access to the outside world, for a good two hours. Surely that would not be an imposition?
The scenes are there, the candidates are the ones who still have no idea if there will be goals or how games have ended. Now they are played one scene after the other. It would make sense to call up each candidate individually or to do this in parallel on several screens in separate rooms. So: now a reporter sits in front of a game scene, just like a (equally good) colleague of his did a while before. So the scene is identical. The sound is off for the “candidate”, of course.
Now, however, the task is not to recognize whether the scene leads to a successful conclusion, whether there will be a goal or not, no. It was all just “accompaniment”. It would even be possible that the speaker only finds out at this moment what he has to do at all. So that would be a “one-off experiment” because if it were repeated, you would know what to expect. But even for a repeat it was suitable, with these small caveats. Perhaps the speaker would then already be well prepared?
What is the task now, what is the whole plan behind it, what is it all about? Goal or not goal? Yes, I’ll take part, ok. “No, that’s not your job at all. You see the scene now, just like your predecessor. Your task now is: comment on them live. You can look at it again afterwards and then comment a second time.” “Without me knowing if it was a goal?” “You caught it. This is about football expertise.”
Well. This is probably just a thought experiment. Nevertheless, one can “anticipate” a few results. What would come of it?
Well, a key idea here, of course, is to compare the commentary of one with that of the other. You would now have, if the second reporter got involved – or otherwise just in spirit – two comments by two proven experts on one and the same scene. How might these relate to each other?
It is possible that as a reader you have already figured out what the outcome is and what it is about. Presumably, of course, the same as the second commentator, who would then simply remain silent. “No, I won’t get involved with that.” Why wouldn’t he? It’s obvious: he can’t do it without knowing whether the ball will go in. Although the live commentator also did not know this in the first instance, just because it was live. So up to this point in time, the subsequent commentator would have to get involved?
Here the first problem would be this: the first commentator would do it knowing the score as well as the previous history. In other words: if he is and was there live, the commentary could result from what happened before. You could even provide help for the reporter here: you tell him the score. You could even play the scenes chronologically for a game so he could be sure it was 0-0 in the first scene. After that, however, you would have to “dissolve”. He would have commented on the scene and also on the repetition of the scene, ignorant of the outcome Tor or not Tor. But for the next scene he would need to know the score, so he would need to know if it was a goal or not – but it wouldn’t be a serious problem either.
A great deal has now been said about the experimental setup and implementation. What should really come out of it has been kept secret until now – unless you had this idea.
The live commentator would probably be busy with peripheral events during the first run through of the scene. So when was the last home win, how long the striker hasn’t scored a goal, when did this player come here for what transfer fee, how long will the coach remain in office or how boring would things be here and everything always followed the same pattern. However, during the scene the voice may rise, signaling that something might happen – without commenting on the scene itself. “… Playback errors, no ideas from the midfield…” he just stretches out the word “midfield” and raises his voice. So the dozing (exactly: THE; he’s just one…) viewer knows that something could happen without being specifically informed about it. The conclusion, if it were a goal, would be something like a “climax”: “And that’s where it happened.” Voice down again long ago, because now the error analysis begins directly. “Everyone is just watching.” “Collective deep sleep”, “nobody has that on the slip”, “criminal free”, “completely unchallenged” and “has no trouble anymore”, although it can also be that “the goalkeeper carries a membership.”
There would be a wide range of alternative examples to comment on the scene. But one thing is for sure: there will be a chain of errors, of dramatic shortcomings, that never fails and is almost a kind of reflex. As soon as the ball is in, the error analysis begins. You can’t even be happy as a spectator for at least a second. “We also have to talk about the goalkeeper.” Who would like to talk about the goalkeeper and who, if you please, are “we”? Failed collectively. All slept. Completely unperturbed. Nobody on the list. criminally free. Everyone is watching. Friendly escort. waved through. Way too easy. deep sleep. Chaos in the back team. A chicken coop, on the other hand, has a high order system. It’s harder to score in training.
None of this is true, but it’s all worth hearing. entertainment value? Under zero. veracity? The expression doesn’t fit. Zero. Funny? Highly restricted. Presumptuous: yes. Disrespectful: yes. Stupid: yes. And now comes the quintessence: only oriented towards the exit? YES!!!
This is where the second speaker comes into play. How would he assess the scene without knowing the outcome? Quite obviously and without any evidence, he would not be able to recognize and work out a single one of these catastrophic shortcomings. Although one can allegedly recognize from the first speaker, as he proves in the repetition, who is wrong and watches and offers friendly escort protection, namely what he says about it, it would be the one commenting after him, who is on the same level as football As far as sanity goes, he couldn’t see unless he knew the ball went into the goal.
If this were not the case – which is suggested in the experiment and makes the idea clear — then in no time at all this friendly escort and the chicken coop and the positional errors would become a “miserable failure of the striker”. Exactly as is the case in the following scene. There the good goal chance did not result in a goal. Suddenly there were no more defensive mistakes, just a striker who would even miss a truck from three meters in a scene in which even the grandmother would have potted the ball.
Conclusion: all the mistakes that one is bombarded with on a single Saturday afternoon in the conference – if one makes the mistake, which, however, only a vanishingly small group of people does with really alert ears and eyes — do not exist at all. In the thought experiment, it becomes clear that you don’t know about a mistake as long as you don’t know the result of the action. Conclusion : It doesn’t exist. Between the catastrophic failure (if the words are to be believed) of one side and the equally significant shortcomings of the other side there is often a post, a hand’s breadth, a millimeter, a randomly ricocheting ball, a toe and often enough an undetected small handicap , which, however, will not be prosecuted. The thought experiment should raise awareness of this. If the mistakes don’t exist, why are we talking about them? It does not meet a minimum criterion for good reporting.
Gladly postponed here: if this experiment were to be proposed in England, one would be a little surprised at what it was supposed to achieve, but every reporter would go along with it without hesitation. Why not? In any case, he only tells what he really sees and how he assesses it. There is nothing artificial about it or anything that is concluded after the fact, not even the attempt at criticism, devaluation, one’s own equality, the accumulation of expert points, as is the norm for this long. An expert says: “Bad mistake”, because if you dare to do that, you have to be really good. But he only dares under the circumstances mentioned.
