The introduction of technology into sport to allow those officiating to review crucial events has not been met with the universal approval of fans. There are some who feel it slows the play, some who feel it destroys the spontaneity and emotion around spectacular events that are eventually reviewed, some who believe it undermines the authority of those who are officiating on the field, some who feel it takes away one quintessential element of randomness (the umpire’s decision), and some who believe that, in any case, officiating errors will somehow magically eventually “even themselves out in the long run”. If you’re not a fan of technology in sport, you’ll probably have yet more reasons to dislike it.

The Chase remains a relatively popular gameshow in both Australia and the UK (see here and here) where it is played using identical rules but different currencies.

One particularly interesting feature is the fact that three of the UK Chasers - Anne Hegerty, Mark Labbett, and Shaun Wallace - have also appeared as Chasers in the Australian version, although the latter has appeared in relatively few Australian episodes and all three have been absent of late due to COVID restrictions.

The other day I was reviewing the forecasts of the modellers on Squiggle, a website that aggregates the opinions of a dozen or so people - including me - who attempt to predict, among other things, the final margins in games of men’s AFL.

Many of us have had a lot more time on our hands lately, and I’ve been using some of that watching old episodes of the Australian version of The Chase.

Being of a quantitative mindset, I got to wondering how the prospects of a team’s chances might vary with the Chaser they faced, the target they set for him or her, and the size of the prize fund they’d amassed. So, I Googled around for a dataset and found this amazing Google document from James Spencer via this article of his.