[Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

An archive of solved lateral thinking puzzles.

Moderators: peter365, Balin, kalira, JenBurdoo, Tiger

[Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby peter365 » Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:27 am

Hi there Lords of all things lateral. A no doubt quickie for you.

Why do two guys randomly start talking about the great value they received on their Car Insurance despite the fact that they hadn't recently bought any?
User avatar
peter365
 
Posts: 1695
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:26 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby GalFisk » Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:40 am

Ads relevant? Are they making fun of something? Parodying something? Doing something else humorous? Being serious? Great value: low price? Great coverage? Good help when an accident happened?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 7905
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby peter365 » Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:50 am

Galfisk

Ads relevant? Somewhat but be careful Are they making fun of something? An element of this but there's more to it Parodying something? No Doing something else humorous? I found it pretty amusing but subjective Being serious? There was definitely a serious side to this, well in the men's view in any case. Great value: low price? Great coverage? Good help when an accident happened? let's just say that they extolled the virtues of one particular Car Insurance offering , you don't need to know the specifics of why it was so good.
User avatar
peter365
 
Posts: 1695
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:26 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby Earnest » Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:54 pm

So...curiosity: does it deal your work?

Did they plan to buy an insurance? To sell an insurance? Had they had an accident recently?
Relevant that Car is written with capital letter?
Relevant the work of the two? Did they talk lpudly? Did they want to be heard by someoene? Would the puzzle still work have they send each other an sms? Did they talk face to face? At a phone? Were they talking previously or did their conversation start by talking about the insurance? Were them in a relevant place? Were they doing an advertising (e.g. actor payed to advertise an insurance)?

Did they receive anything at all? Did they receive money? Relevant that they have spoken about a car insurance instead of another source of entry? Had they specified the reason why they received a great value? Great value = money? Relevant? If they had received a great value does it necessarily imply that they had a great accident/incident? If so, relevant?
Earnest
 
Posts: 1522
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby peter365 » Mon Mar 05, 2018 1:45 pm

Earnest

So...curiosity: does it deal your work? No

Did they plan to buy an insurance? To sell an insurance? Had they had an accident recently?
Relevant that Car is written with capital letter? No to all
Relevant the work of the two? Yes Did they talk lpudly? Yes Did they want to be heard by someoene? Yes Would the puzzle still work have they send each other an sms? No Did they talk face to face? Yes At a phone? Were they talking previously or did their conversation start by talking about the insurance? This would have been part of a general chat Were them in a relevant place? Yes Were they doing an advertising (e.g. actor payed to advertise an insurance)? No

Did they receive anything at all? They get paid for doing their job not for having this conversation Did they receive money? No for the conversation Relevant that they have spoken about a car insurance instead of another source of entry? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by source of entry, but it's very relevant that they talked about Car Insurance Had they specified the reason why they received a great value? No they just mentioned that they'd got a great deal, I don't have an exact text of what they said but that's all you need to know Great value = money? Relevant? If they had received a great value does it necessarily imply that they had a great accident/incident? If so, relevant? It's not relevant because they hadn't in fact bought any car insurance.
User avatar
peter365
 
Posts: 1695
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:26 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby invisiblemimsy » Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:11 pm

Was this in real life? On television? Did they work in the motor business? Were they racers? Some other thing relevant to racing? Salesmen? Were women involved? Did they want to impress someone? Is it relevant which cars they were talking about? Selling, buying, driving or other? Was boasting involved? A bet? A competition? Were they out-and-out lying? Confusing the issue or trying to? Joking?
User avatar
invisiblemimsy
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:16 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby peter365 » Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:54 pm

Invisiblemimsy

Was this in real life? Yes On television? Yes Did they work in the motor business? Were they racers? Some other thing relevant to racing? Salesmen? Were women involved? No to all Did they want to impress someone? No Is it relevant which cars they were talking about? Selling, buying, driving or other? No to all Was boasting involved? It might appear to be but no A bet? No A competition? Yes Were they out-and-out lying? Yes Confusing the issue or trying to? An element of this yes Joking? It's funny but that wasn't the intention.


To avoid any other questions regarding the actual conversation lets take it that it went something like this :

'Hey Jack I got an unbelievably good deal on my car insurance'.
'Really , was that from ACME Insurances?'
'Yes they're really the best deal around.
User avatar
peter365
 
Posts: 1695
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:26 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby invisiblemimsy » Mon Mar 05, 2018 3:07 pm

Advertisement involved? SitCom? Gameshow? Other TV program? Relevant?
User avatar
invisiblemimsy
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:16 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby peter365 » Mon Mar 05, 2018 3:41 pm

Invisiblemimsy

Advertisement involved? Not a specific advert no . SitCom? Gameshow? No to both Other TV program? I could say yes here but it would have the potential to confuse. It's not a programme per se but...... Relevant? Yes
User avatar
peter365
 
Posts: 1695
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:26 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby Earnest » Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:00 pm

No idea of what ACME is...can I suppose it is a generic insurance? Is it relevant for puzzle?

Is it a movie? Was chatting about the car insurance an excuse to do something? Looking at something? To look inside a car? were them policemen? Did they work for law? Were them actors? Were them spies? Were they chatting in front of one of the car of the two? Did they want someone to join the conversation? Did they know someone else had the samw insurance and wanted to verify wheather he was cheating with it? Did they work for the company? In talking like that were they doing the interests of the company? If so voluntarily? Burglary or arson relevant?

Place where they were speaking? In outside? In inside? In a specific building? In a pub? In a park? Inside the building of an insurance company? Inside the building of a concurrent insurance company? Were the two already prepared to start talking about it? Randomly = as soon as something happened? As soon as someone arrived? A woman? A man? Their boss? Did they work in the financial sector? In a newspaper? Telling news? In insurance sector?

Did they want to appear richer than they were? Had they got a car? Had they got a car insurance at all? Is car insurance a sign? With car insurance they meant car insurance right? Were the two commenting a match? Relevant what they were saying before talking to insurance? Were they talking about something which sound similar to car insurance but was for instance something too embarassing so that they suddenly turned into speaking of car insurance?
Earnest
 
Posts: 1522
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby invisiblemimsy » Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:24 pm

Something which happened in the ad breaks? Was there a situation where they thought they were off air but they were actually on air? Were they trying to cover something up or allow for something?
User avatar
invisiblemimsy
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:16 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby peter365 » Thu Mar 08, 2018 9:06 am

Earnest

No idea of what ACME is...can I suppose it is a generic insurance? Is it relevant for puzzle? No, ACME is a term used in TV shows and cartoons to describe a fictitious company. The Coyote used to buy all his 'roadrunner' catching equipment from ACME. I wouldn't get too concerned with the exact name of the company as I don't actually have this information. There is relevance in the fact that they mentioned a company's name

Is it a movie? Was chatting about the car insurance an excuse to do something? Looking at something? To look inside a car? were them policemen? Did they work for law? Were them actors? Were them spies? Were they chatting in front of one of the car of the two? Did they want someone to join the conversation? Did they know someone else had the samw insurance and wanted to verify wheather he was cheating with it? Did they work for the company? In talking like that were they doing the interests of the company? If so voluntarily? Burglary or arson relevant? I can save some time by saying no to all of these and quite a bit away from the right track.

Place where they were speaking? In outside? Yes In inside? In a specific building? In a pub? In a park? Inside the building of an insurance company? Inside the building of a concurrent insurance company? No to all Were the two already prepared to start talking about it? This was a planned action by them if that's what you mean Randomly = as soon as something happened? As soon as someone arrived? A woman? A man? Their boss? Did they work in the financial sector? In a newspaper? Telling news? In insurance sector? No to all

Did they want to appear richer than they were? No Had they got a car? Yes but that's not relevant Had they got a car insurance at all? I'm sure they do but again not really relevant Is car insurance a sign? No With car insurance they meant car insurance right? Yes Were the two commenting a match? No but..... Relevant what they were saying before talking to insurance? It's relevant what they may have wanted to say Were they talking about something which sound similar to car insurance but was for instance something too embarassing so that they suddenly turned into speaking of car insurance? No
User avatar
peter365
 
Posts: 1695
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:26 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby peter365 » Thu Mar 08, 2018 9:07 am

Invisilemimsy

Something which happened in the ad breaks? No Was there a situation where they thought they were off air but they were actually on air? No they very much knew that they were on air Were they trying to cover something up or allow for something? There certainly is an element of wanting to cover up something but be careful.
User avatar
peter365
 
Posts: 1695
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:26 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby peter365 » Thu Mar 08, 2018 9:09 am

Hint

This puzzle will take a massive shift in the right direction if you establish what exactly the two men are doing when this conversation happens. They are doing their job but you need to establish what that is.
User avatar
peter365
 
Posts: 1695
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:26 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby Earnest » Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:00 am

So they were doing their job in outside right? Is their job mainly done in outside?...were them in a field? Football/rugby field? Were them speakers? Radio relevant? Were they constructing something? A building? Were they selling something? Did they provide a good? A service? Does their job deal mainly with speaking/talking/information? Internet? Websites? Online videos? Like...where they filming themselves whike introducing a topic for their blog? Were them interested that someone goes and speak with the one claiming to have had a good deal for having more info? Did they want to attract people? Did their job involve cars indirectly? Directly? Is making that claim a way to attract more clients/made people curious about insurance? Were they seen by other people while talking about car insurance or were them like moving puppets and one of the puppet had a car?


Were there just two people in the conversation?
Earnest
 
Posts: 1522
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby peter365 » Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:51 pm

Earnest

So they were doing their job in outside right? Yes Is their job mainly done in outside? Always yes ...were them in a field? Yes Football/rugby field? Not rugby or football but on the right track Were them speakers? Not sure what you mean, there were microphones Radio relevant? No Were they constructing something? A building? Were they selling something? Did they provide a good? A service? Does their job deal mainly with speaking/talking/information? Internet? Websites? Online videos? Like...where they filming themselves whike introducing a topic for their blog? No to all above Were them interested that someone goes and speak with the one claiming to have had a good deal for having more info? No that's not their intention at all Did they want to attract people? No Did their job involve cars indirectly? Directly? Is making that claim a way to attract more clients/made people curious about insurance? Were they seen by other people while talking about car insurance or were them like moving puppets and one of the puppet had a car? No to these as well


Were there just two people in the conversation? A few others were joining in I'm sure
User avatar
peter365
 
Posts: 1695
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:26 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby Earnest » Thu Mar 08, 2018 5:06 pm

Were them on golf field? Are those machines driven by golf players relevant?...wait...not sure if they are driven by golf players so I ask: is their job to drive golf players from one side to another of the golf field?
Earnest
 
Posts: 1522
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby invisiblemimsy » Thu Mar 08, 2018 6:17 pm

Car or bike or bicycle racing? Were they mechanics in the 'pit' who have to change tyres etc?
Bookies? Were they changing their odds or paying out?

Commentators, Umpires, Referees, Linesmen, coaches?
Cricket, Tennis, Lacrosse, Hockey, track and field events...?
User avatar
invisiblemimsy
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:16 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby peter365 » Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:42 am

Earnest

Were them on golf field? Are those machines driven by golf players relevant?...wait...not sure if they are driven by golf players so I ask: is their job to drive golf players from one side to another of the golf field? No , nothing to do with Golf
User avatar
peter365
 
Posts: 1695
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:26 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby peter365 » Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:43 am

Invisiblemimsy

Car or bike or bicycle racing? Were they mechanics in the 'pit' who have to change tyres etc?
Bookies? Were they changing their odds or paying out? No to all

Commentators, Umpires, Referees, Linesmen, coaches? No, they are players
Cricket, Tennis, Lacrosse, Hockey, track and field events...? It's Cricket, this may be googleable so I'd ask you to resist.
User avatar
peter365
 
Posts: 1695
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:26 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby invisiblemimsy » Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:56 am

No googling here!
Is this anything to do with particular insurance companies, insurance aggregate sites or their adverts? Should we determine which particular insurance company we are dealing with here? Some kind of cricket terms, eg googlies? Were they relevantly playing or watching at the time? Was in connected with something which occurred in a match?
User avatar
invisiblemimsy
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:16 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby Balin » Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:16 pm

Is it relevant which team they play for? Their positions? Their names?
Balin
 
Posts: 6639
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Connecticut, USA

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby invisiblemimsy » Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:38 am

& when you say it might be google-able... are googlies involved?
User avatar
invisiblemimsy
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:16 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby peter365 » Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:11 am

Invisiblemimsy

No googling here! Thanks and sorry for neglecting this puzzle I was away last week.
Is this anything to do with particular insurance companies, insurance aggregate sites or their adverts? Advertising is relevant Should we determine which particular insurance company we are dealing with here? It's not that important to know there actual names Some kind of cricket terms, eg googlies? No Were they relevantly playing or watching at the time? Yes they were playing Was in connected with something which occurred in a match? yes there was a relevant issue pertaining to the match.

& when you say it might be google-able... are googlies involved? I'm afraid not but points for creativity
User avatar
peter365
 
Posts: 1695
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:26 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby peter365 » Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:12 am

Balin

Is it relevant which team they play for? Somewhat, they were Aussies Their positions? Yes , they were fielding quite close to the pitch Their names? No
User avatar
peter365
 
Posts: 1695
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:26 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby invisiblemimsy » Tue Mar 20, 2018 1:09 pm

Bearing in mind that Cricket is a total black art to me, do you think I should just watch this puzzle from the pavilion and/or go and prepare the cream teas?
User avatar
invisiblemimsy
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:16 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby peter365 » Tue Mar 20, 2018 1:59 pm

Bearing in mind that Cricket is a total black art to me, do you think I should just watch this puzzle from the pavilion and/or go and prepare the cream teas? Don't give up , no great knowledge of cricket is required. Think about modern sports coverage and you'll be on the right track.
User avatar
peter365
 
Posts: 1695
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:26 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby WiZ » Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:04 pm

Did the fact that they were audibly talking about an insurance company (maybe a competitor of a sponsor) mean that they violated some rule with the channel/station/company doing the TV broadcasting, and they wouldn't be able to show footage of whatever was happening at the time (perhaps an embarassing gaffe by the Aussies or spectacular play by England?)
User avatar
WiZ
 
Posts: 2403
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 8:19 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby invisiblemimsy » Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:17 pm

Did the ball go out of the ground and hit something? Like when the batter bats it into the trees and they get lots of runs while people are searching for it?
Did something embarrassing happen, like a streaker on the pitch, so the commentators started talking about something completely irrelevant rather than comment on the streaker?
Did the ball hit a car and break its windscreen or something?
User avatar
invisiblemimsy
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:16 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby peter365 » Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:43 am

WiZ

Did the fact that they were audibly talking about an insurance company (maybe a competitor of a sponsor) mean that they violated some rule with the channel/station/company doing the TV broadcasting, and they wouldn't be able to show footage of whatever was happening at the time (perhaps an embarassing gaffe by the Aussies or spectacular play by England?) Well done WiZ that's correct. The test match was being sponsored by an insurance company and the players in question were bragging about the great car insurance deal they got from a rival company knowing it would be picked up by the stump microphones. Now why would they do that?
User avatar
peter365
 
Posts: 1695
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:26 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby peter365 » Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:46 am

Invisiblemimsy

Did the ball go out of the ground and hit something? Like when the batter bats it into the trees and they get lots of runs while people are searching for it?
Did something embarrassing happen, like a streaker on the pitch, so the commentators started talking about something completely irrelevant rather than comment on the streaker?
Did the ball hit a car and break its windscreen or something? None of this is on the right track , WiZ has given this a mighty shove in the direction of the spoiler.
User avatar
peter365
 
Posts: 1695
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:26 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby Balin » Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:41 pm

Was the sponsoring company similar to the name of their opponent? Did the company also sponsor their opponent?
Balin
 
Posts: 6639
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Connecticut, USA

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby invisiblemimsy » Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:38 pm

Was this televised, on radio, or both? Relevant?
The thing they wanted to get censored, was it to do with the game itself, or some other factor like someone on the pitch who shouldn't have been there, a streaker or something?
User avatar
invisiblemimsy
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:16 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby peter365 » Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:10 am

Balin

Was the sponsoring company similar to the name of their opponent? Not relevantly Did the company also sponsor their opponent? Not sure which company you're referring to but no.
User avatar
peter365
 
Posts: 1695
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:26 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby peter365 » Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:12 am

Invisiblemimsy

Was this televised, on radio, or both? TV yes not sure about radio but not relevant Relevant? Yes it's relevant that this was on TV
The thing they wanted to get censored, was it to do with the game itself, or some other factor like someone on the pitch who shouldn't have been there, a streaker or something? There intention was to get rid of something pertaining to the game.
User avatar
peter365
 
Posts: 1695
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:26 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby invisiblemimsy » Thu Mar 22, 2018 10:30 am

So it’s somethin visual? Were they just being mean, e.g. to the other side, so a really good bit of play wouldn’t be seen? Did one of the players do something he shouldn’t? Relevant which team they were supporting, or were they impartial? Did it just involve players, or groundsmen, referee, audience, someone else? Something to do with the game itself?
User avatar
invisiblemimsy
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:16 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby peter365 » Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:39 am

Invisiblemimsy

So it’s somethin visual? Not really no Were they just being mean, e.g. to the other side, so a really good bit of play wouldn’t be seen? The first half of this queston is relevant but it's not a visual thing Did one of the players do something he shouldn’t? They certainly planned to Relevant which team they were supporting, or were they impartial? They're players so they were only interested in their own teams fortunes. Did it just involve players, or groundsmen, referee, audience, This someone else? This Something to do with the game itself? Yes if I understand you correctly.
User avatar
peter365
 
Posts: 1695
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:26 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby peter365 » Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:50 am

A quick summary to hasten the spoiler

The Australian cricket team are playing a test match, the TV coverage of which is sponsored by ACME Insurances .During the game two or more Aussie fielders start talking loudly about the great value Insurance offered by ACME's main rivals Global Insurances. They do this knowing full well that their chat will be picked up by the stump mikes which are a fairly new development designed to enhance the TV audiences viewing experience.

The Aussies do not do this for financial gain but rather as a tactic to help them gain an advantage in the game.

So why did they do this. I don't know the actual names of the insurance companies so I made these up but you have all you need to know.
User avatar
peter365
 
Posts: 1695
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:26 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby Enjay » Mon Mar 26, 2018 7:28 pm

Are the mikes intended to pick up the sounds of the game being played? Can the sounds picked up by the mikes normally be heard by the players? The live audience? The TV audience? The officials? Anyone else relevant?

As a result of their talking about the insurer, will the feed from the mikes be cut off? Replaced by something else? Will the TV broadcast be cut off? Muted?
Enjay
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 8:36 pm
Location: UK

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby WiZ » Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:15 pm

They were trying to get rid of something pertaining to the game - were they trying to get rid of the stump mikes? Do Australian cricketers not like stump mikes because they prevent them from bullying and intimidating their opponents, which, aside from outright cheating, is the favoured tactic of those contemptible reprobates?
User avatar
WiZ
 
Posts: 2403
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 8:19 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby peter365 » Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:26 am

Enjay

Are the mikes intended to pick up the sounds of the game being played? Yes Can the sounds picked up by the mikes normally be heard by the players? Yes The live audience? somewhat The TV audience? Yes The officials? Yes Anyone else relevant? No

As a result of their talking about the insurer, will the feed from the mikes be cut off? that's the intention Replaced by something else? Will the TV broadcast be cut off? No Muted? [b] Only the stump mikes [/b]
User avatar
peter365
 
Posts: 1695
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:26 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs

Postby peter365 » Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:33 am

WiZ

They were trying to get rid of something pertaining to the game - were they trying to get rid of the stump mikes? Yes Do Australian cricketers not like stump mikes because they prevent them from bullying and intimidating their opponents, which, aside from outright cheating, is the favoured tactic of those contemptible reprobates? That's exactly it.


*****************SPOILER*****************

Australian cricket teams are masters of the art of sledging which is verbal intimidation of the opposing batsman by the bowlers and close in fielders. However there has been some incidences recently of stump mikes picking up some very unsavoury remarks and language . This put the Aussies under pressure from TV companies and sponsors to knock it on the head. Rather than do that they (rather cleverly I have to admit) starting talking loudly about the great deals available from a rival insurance company to the main sponsor of the coverage.

This resulted in the stump mikes being switched off at the request of the sponsor and allowed the Australians to get back to their mud slinging activities.

Since i posted this the Australian team has become embroiled in a ball tampering scandal that has rocked the sport so events rather overtook this puzzle. Thanks for playing.
User avatar
peter365
 
Posts: 1695
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:26 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs (Tampered With)

Postby invisiblemimsy » Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:03 am

Oh, very good! Nice puzzle, Peter.
User avatar
invisiblemimsy
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:16 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: [Peter365] Underwriting the Wrongs (Tampered With)

Postby WiZ » Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:32 am

New Zealanders aren't given to grudges and prejudices, by and large, but we do make an exception for Australian cricketers.

I did like the moxie of a young South African fan who asked one of the embroiled players to sign his sheet of sandpaper.
User avatar
WiZ
 
Posts: 2403
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 8:19 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand


Return to Solved Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
cron