Nope, not 1/3

same as if you've flipped a coin and got a head, then flip it again looking for a tail.

1 in 2. Fact they have a girl already has no bearing on second child. So could be a boy or could be a girl. 2 possible outcome both equally likely.

I don't mind if they have makes it more interesting, I'm just making an assumption from what I have seen.

Would have been a crap final with no one there if it was Catalan vs huds say, only really 3-4 teams that could take 20k fans. So the stadium dosnt look empty.

Evens

Nope.

It is twice as likely to be a boy.

We know the parents have 2 children.

We know only that one of them is a girl.

Here are the only possibilities of what could have happened
1. Boy - Boy
2. Boy - Girl
3. Girl - Girl
4. Girl - Boy

We can eliminate no. 1 immediately, can't be boy-boy because one of the children (Myrtle) is not a boy.

But the other 3 remaining possibilities are equally likely. And in 2 out of 3, the sibling is a boy.

QED

Back on topic, players shouldn't tackle other players with techniques that they wouldn't want used on themselves.

2 and 4 are exactly the same result you are trying to say 10 + 5 = 15 but 5 + 10 doesn't = 15.
So only two possibilities which are equally likely so it's a 1 in 2 chance of being a boy.

Why are the permutations of their birth order significant? There's one child, and there's the other one.

My favourite illustration of probability would be the Monty Hall gameshow puzzle:

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors:

Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you,
"Do you want to pick door No. 2?"

Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?

Yes....i think.

But I cant for the life of me remember why.

Completely agree, the rfl seem to think nothing was amiss with wigans tackling, would be a shame if all clubs had to coach these techniques to "not be disadvantaged in comparison to others" to paraphrase Wayne Bennet.

[url=http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportbulls/10551133.Bradford_Bulls_boss_Cummins_reacts_to__massive_loss__of_Sidlow/cummins on rfl and wigan tacking[/url

[i"Cummins, who has ruled Blythe out for a month, was angered by the “cannonball” tackle he says caused the injury but will let the matter drop after lodging a complaint with the Rugby Football League.

..Cummins added: “I said at the time I wasn’t sure how Adam’s injury was caused but Matty Blythe has definitely had a direct contact with his knee from behind.

“I got feedback from the RFL but there was no action so obviously that must be legal.” [/i


I would have the Ref (or ideally a 2nd ref who is patrolling the PTB) shout held more quickly once a player is held up/tackled by 2 players and punish any movement by the tackling players (or the arrival of a 3rd) after shouting held that is not a release and move away motion. At the same time more rigidly enforce a Proper playing of the ball with the foot whilst stood still by the attacking player so as to not allow too quick PTB after a quick shout of held. We need to find some way of allowing tacking without it degenerating into touch and pass, but the tacking needs to be just tackling and not wrestling.

If held is shouted sooner it stops other defenders charging in on the attacker, and speeds the game up. If I wanted to watch a pile of men in a heap I would watch the other code!

On a related point it always worries me when I see defenders twisting limbs - normal after the tackle has been made.

No, i have set it out very clearly. this is the problem with people failing to understand probability. Even when you set it out, if they find it counter-intuitive, many people still won't have it. Don't worry - it's a common trait.

But clearly, having a girl first, and a boy second, is not the same thing as having a boy first, then a girl. This doesn't need explaining.


Because on the information you have, you do not know whether Myrtle is the older or younger child.

Now, if someone gave you additional information, and revealed that Myrtle WAS (say) the OLDER of the two children, that alters the probability. Why? Because now, you can exclude the Boy-Girl order of birth. That leaves 2 remaining possibilities, Girl-Girl, or Girl- Boy. And is an even money shout.

But if, as in the original scenario, you don't know whether Myrtle is the elder or younger, then Boy - Girl remains an equal possibility. That is the significance.

Statistically, if you picked a random sample of 100 families where they had had two children, and in each family at least one child was known to be a girl, it follows that on average you would expect to find an even distribution of birth orders. That is, there should on average be 25 G+G, 25 G+B, 25 B+G. There can't be any B+B. So that leaves 75 families standing.

If you have a £ on each family, and bet that in each case, the other child is a boy, then you will lose £25 on the G+G families, but you will win £25 + £25 = £50 on the G+B and the B+G families.

This is why the person who wrongly thinks, that in the given case of any of the families, it is an even money bet, can lose a lot of money. Exactly this principle is used to tempt mugs the world over in an extremely common three-card trick treet scam.

This depends on whether you prefer cars to goats. If you do, then yes, absolutely you must switch. The logic is very similar to my puzzle, and equally counter-intuitive.

Door A or B = a Goat; Door C = a Car

a) if she picked C and switches, she will lose
b) if she picked A, and switches then she will win
c) if she picked B, and switches then she will win.

Therefore she is twice as likely to win if she switches than if she doesn't, so she would be a mug punter not to switch.

I mostly agree with Duckman and Northernrelic. But I don't think it is necessary to call "held" quicker in every tackle. There are plenty of tackles where the attacker hasn't succumbed, but is still trying to make ground, and that should be OK. As should a player who has been stopped upright, and quickly defenders rush in and force him back, losing ground.

It should not be beyond the wit of officials to outlaw and to spot the cannonball, the third man in with a cheap shot to the legs (as opposed to a fair tackle aimed at bringing him down), or the twisting of limbs into unnatural positions. Like they tightened up on chicken wings etc a couple of years back when wrestling became the vogue.

The PTB seems to be going the way of the scrum, largely an irrelevance. Players and coaches are very quick to take advantage of any laxity and so now, the NORM is for an attacker to
a) NOT regain his feet before placing the ball back on the ground
b) NOT to play the ball with the foot (in fact, we have this stupid thing about "he made an effort to play it", ffs
c) To almost always step forward off the mark whilst effecting a quick "ptb", almost on the run

The result is that in many attacking situations, the defending team is placed at a huge disadvantage, as they are caught out by a "quick ptb", and a try follows, yet very often on the replays it is clear the ptb was incorrect, often the player had not fully regained his feet, very often he just rolled the ball back while doing no more than a lazy token leg waft in the general area of the rolling ball.

If we want to change the rules to legalise this completely alien version of the PTB then they should do so, but frequently at the moment the PTB is laughably illegal, yet you hardly ever see the officials penalise it.

In fact the one regular penalty we do see at a PTB is a player who is trying to do a legal quick PTB, and is pulled forwards so he falls over, by the marker, gets penalised, instead of the player who interfered!

Imagine if Darwin instead of going on a jaunt round the Pacific had made the more perilous journey to The North - then the Origin of the Species would have contained the memerable line " the survival of the slimiest"

Spot on FA.

I'd also add in as stupid, those occasions when a player touches the ball with the foot and accidentally pushes it forward and he is then penalised for effectively trying to do the ptb properly. If he'd just done the usual, waving the foot in the air routine, it would have gone by without penalty.

I see your point, but would rather they apply the rules as is (or if they don't want to, then change them), rather than letting one thing go just because they let another thing go.

Whilst we're on this, on occasions a player will regain his feet and then drop the ball as he's in the act of placing it on the ground. This is 100% of the time called a knock on and a scrum is awarded. Yet the laws plainly state that the player shall "place OR DROP" the ball.

It could be because he is moving forward trying to gain a few extra yards, but equally in FA's case the attacker may have dropped the ball due to the defender trying to shake his hand?

Maybe the rule should say that at the ptb the attacker shall be stationary, and play the ball on the ground with his foot?

Now that would never catch on....

Where they not supposed to police that a couple of seasons ago, remember a few penalties for incorrect PTB, now they arent bothered about them again, annoys me though at least make the effort.

It all comes down to getting the balance between attack and defence right. That is what the authorities are actually bothered about, not the mechanics. With either attack or defence dominating too much it spoils games and removes the spectacle, so they fiddle about with 'interpretations' and tell refs to ping this or that - or not to, depending on the current need.

To be honest I don't have a problem with rules being changed [though it's a pain when it happens too much, and it usually does, what I do have a problem with is when the on field 'interpretation' is totally at odds with the rule - as we have now with the PTB. If we have a good balanced game with the ball being thrown back between the legs and the foot being waved somewhere in the vicinity and with the defence just 8 metres back, well fine - just alter the rules to reflect that this is how the game should be played, then we'd have nothing to complain about.

And another thing I hate is the seemingly unwritten rule that the player should "make an attempt" to ptb with his foot.

Why then not let people off forward passes, as long as they "make an attempt" to pass it backwards?

Why not let people off unlucky fumbles - if the player at least made an attempt to catch the ball?

Why not give 2 points for a kick that bounces off the post? The kicker made a bloody good attempt to get it between the posts?

And in the case of the PTB, it would be so easy to police; if you enforced the rule that the ball had to be "placed on the ground" then clearly, it won't then move, unless you play it with the foot. Attempts don't come into it.

And that is the crux of it to me. When a player properly places the ball down on the ground, if he then "made an attempt" to play it, i.e. if his foot very clearly made the full ptb motion - but he missed the ball, and it never moved, then he would be penalised every time. But if the ball moves back to the dummy half DUE TO HAVING BEEN ROLLED ALONG THE GROUND BY THE HAND then the same player will NOT be penalised usually, as long as that was accompanied by a leg waft, however cursory.