Most active commenters
  • _heimdall(8)
  • umanwizard(6)
  • schoen(3)

←back to thread

World conker champion found with steel chestnut, cleared of cheating

(www.theguardian.com)
424 points notamy | 62 comments | 15 Oct 24 03:12 UTC | HN request time: 0.719s | source | bottom
Show context
umanwizard ◴[15 Oct 24 03:33 UTC] No.41844648[source]▶
Is this game well-known enough in Britain and Ireland that readers will know what on earth is being alleged just from reading this article? Or are you expected to have to google it?

Apparently it’s a game where you take turns swinging a chestnut on a string and trying to hit the opponent’s chestnut and break it. Yes, I can see how a steel fake chestnut would be an advantage here, though I’m amazed it wouldn’t be instantly obvious to even a casual observer that the look and sound were wrong. So maybe I’m still missing something.

replies(39): >>41844679 #>>41844680 #>>41844692 #>>41844710 #>>41844745 #>>41844790 #>>41844893 #>>41844956 #>>41844990 #>>41845090 #>>41845138 #>>41845146 #>>41845586 #>>41845601 #>>41845668 #>>41845691 #>>41845701 #>>41845708 #>>41845741 #>>41845780 #>>41845876 #>>41845950 #>>41845966 #>>41846137 #>>41846168 #>>41846302 #>>41846427 #>>41846459 #>>41846461 #>>41846479 #>>41846565 #>>41846594 #>>41846647 #>>41846716 #>>41846833 #>>41846898 #>>41847062 #>>41847270 #>>41847710 #
1. nickcw ◴[15 Oct 24 07:35 UTC] No.41845876[source]▶
I used to play conkers at school in England, however my children didn't.

The reason? Schools have banned the game of conkers due to health and safety reasons.

I asked my 17 year old this morning and he had never even heard of the game of conkers.

So I think the age of conkers is passing, alas.

replies(9): >>41845944 #>>41845994 #>>41846029 #>>41846080 #>>41846363 #>>41846497 #>>41846747 #>>41846952 #>>41847626 #
2. martin_ ◴[15 Oct 24 07:46 UTC] No.41845944[source]▶
Also played at school in England.... probably ~22 years ago now I'd guess! Sad to hear that era is over!
3. schoen ◴[15 Oct 24 07:54 UTC] No.41845994[source]▶
What are the health and safety risks from this game? Do the chestnuts fragment violently when they break up?
replies(4): >>41846007 #>>41846022 #>>41846438 #>>41847311 #
4. 946789987649 ◴[15 Oct 24 07:56 UTC] No.41846007[source]▶
accidentally hitting each other
replies(2): >>41846031 #>>41846167 #
5. ◴[15 Oct 24 07:57 UTC] No.41846022[source]▶
6. gandalfian ◴[15 Oct 24 07:57 UTC] No.41846029[source]▶
<The reason? Schools have banned the game of conkers due to health and safety reasons.>

I understood that was a myth created from a few isolated instances and the medias general desire to wind people up. I don't know why it has died out mind.

replies(4): >>41846060 #>>41846133 #>>41846585 #>>41846813 #
7. schoen ◴[15 Oct 24 07:57 UTC] No.41846031{3}[source]▶
I can't really visualize the amount of momentum involved, or how sharp the chestnut is. Is that specifically about eye injuries, or could it hurt someone some other way?
replies(2): >>41846446 #>>41847094 #
8. _dain_ ◴[15 Oct 24 08:00 UTC] No.41846060[source]▶
Not a myth. I went to school during the twilight of the conker. It absolutely died because risk-averse teachers banned it, to howls of protest from us kids.
replies(2): >>41846364 #>>41846376 #
9. zarzavat ◴[15 Oct 24 08:03 UTC] No.41846080[source]▶
It's much more likely to have died out because of smartphones. The boredom of the pre-smartphone era led to all kinds of ingenuity. Kids were bored so they found ways to not be bored. Nowadays everybody is addicted their phone, simple pleasures such as violently smashing two nuts together no longer have the same pull.
replies(5): >>41846264 #>>41847299 #>>41847409 #>>41847892 #>>41851401 #
10. darrenf ◴[15 Oct 24 08:09 UTC] No.41846133[source]▶
The HSE posted on their mythbusting site that it was a myth at a national level, but I suppose individual schools might have done so?

https://web.archive.org/web/20211018040605/https://www.hse.g...

Quote: "Realistically the risk from playing conkers is incredibly low and just not worth bothering about. If kids deliberately hit each other over the head with conkers, that's a discipline issue, not health and safety."

Certainly there was at least one school that got goggles for pupils to wear while playing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/3712764.stm

replies(2): >>41846753 #>>41847850 #
11. arethuza ◴[15 Oct 24 08:13 UTC] No.41846167{3}[source]▶
Ah yes "accidentally"... ;-)
12. treerock ◴[15 Oct 24 08:24 UTC] No.41846264[source]▶
I was out for a walk yesterday, and kids were throwing sticks up trees trying to knock the chestnuts down, so I don't think it's dead completely.

I never really played it when I was a kid, but knew all about it from The Beano and Oor Wullie.

13. BoxOfRain ◴[15 Oct 24 08:37 UTC] No.41846363[source]▶
I'm one of that 'too young to be a millennial, too old to be a zoomer' cohort and we definitely played it in the '00s, I vaguely remember the rumours of it being banned encouraged its popularity quite a bit. They also banned British bulldog around that time so we renamed it 'hot dog' and carried on!
replies(1): >>41846375 #
14. hi-v-rocknroll ◴[15 Oct 24 08:37 UTC] No.41846364{3}[source]▶
Just another brick in the wall.
15. cjrp ◴[15 Oct 24 08:40 UTC] No.41846375[source]▶
Side note, if you were playing conkers in the 00s are you still too young to be a millenial?
replies(1): >>41846683 #
16. petemir ◴[15 Oct 24 08:40 UTC] No.41846376{3}[source]▶
The myth is the game being a health hazard, not if it was banned (or not).
17. ratherbefuddled ◴[15 Oct 24 08:50 UTC] No.41846438[source]▶
Mostly it increases teacher stress levels having to referee.
18. lazide ◴[15 Oct 24 08:51 UTC] No.41846446{4}[source]▶
If you whip it above your head at a good 100-200 rpm, anything is possible.
19. red_admiral ◴[15 Oct 24 08:58 UTC] No.41846497[source]▶
Drilling/punching the hole in a conker might be vaguely dangerous, and you're not supposed to carry a stabby tool at school anymore. But the game itself is not that dangerous, though that won't have stopped some schools from banning it.
20. GordonS ◴[15 Oct 24 09:12 UTC] No.41846585[source]▶
I remember being a kid in the 80's, and being told by a primary school teacher we couldn't play conkers anymore :( We'd only just discovered it too!
21. Sharlin ◴[15 Oct 24 09:27 UTC] No.41846683{3}[source]▶
Someone born in 1996 ± 2 years or so would easily have played conkers in the 00s and consider themselves a zennial.
22. OJFord ◴[15 Oct 24 09:36 UTC] No.41846747[source]▶
I'm between your ages and we played it. Not a lot, it definitely occupies a larger area of national psyche than it's played I think, but we did. Yes school banned it, but when did that ever stop us?
23. walthamstow ◴[15 Oct 24 09:37 UTC] No.41846753{3}[source]▶
The academy run by Lord Ashcroft has banned bicycles so I guess anything is possible when you're outside of local authority control
24. dspillett ◴[15 Oct 24 09:48 UTC] No.41846813[source]▶
It is a myth that it was banned nationally for health & safety (“nanny state”) reasons, as was incorrectly reported in the press (mostly in the red-top papers), but some schools certainly did ban the game.

This was usually because it became a tool for bullying: deliberate hand hits in games, deliberate hand hits in other contexts with complaints of an attack fobbed off as “we were playing conckers and there was an accident”, and so on.

Also like any playground sport there were gambling issues (I'm not sure if they were serious issues, or just if some schools took them too seriously, but I remember there being a glut of warnings about it when I was in secondary level education, around the same time as some bullying concern related bans).

replies(1): >>41847595 #
25. greatgib ◴[15 Oct 24 10:09 UTC] No.41846952[source]▶
I saw on the wikipedia page the following totally stupid reason for the ban in some schools:

   In 2004, several schools banned conkers due to fear of causing anaphylactic shock in pupils with nut allergies. Health advisers said that there were no known dangers from conkers for nut-allergy sufferers, although some may experience a mild rash through handling them.[20]
replies(1): >>41847081 #
26. ljf ◴[15 Oct 24 10:32 UTC] No.41847081[source]▶
Interesting, as conkers are seeds (not a nut) - so shouldn't be an issue for someone with a nut allergy - though no doubt some people are allergic to them.
replies(2): >>41847341 #>>41852052 #
27. schoen ◴[15 Oct 24 10:33 UTC] No.41847094{4}[source]▶
After writing the above comment, I watched videos of people playing conkers and now I understand how it could, in theory, cause an eye injury. It was hard for me to visualize how close the defender's conker is to the defender's body before seeing the video. I was somehow wrongly imagining that it was being supported on a much longer string or with the help of other objects somehow.
replies(1): >>41847209 #
28. ryanjshaw ◴[15 Oct 24 10:53 UTC] No.41847209{5}[source]▶
Literally the first video I watched, 2:28 min in, kid gets knocked in the teeth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egBjZaKNLuc
29. mellosouls ◴[15 Oct 24 11:07 UTC] No.41847299[source]▶
It's much more likely to have died out because of smartphones

I know kids have a lot more money these days but I refuse to believe they are swinging two smartphones together instead of conkers.

replies(3): >>41847542 #>>41848128 #>>41848248 #
30. mellosouls ◴[15 Oct 24 11:10 UTC] No.41847311[source]▶
Imagine swinging two stones (many techniques to harden conkers including the game itself evolving the brutes by elimination) together at high speed with fingers and faces in very near proximity.
31. joncrocks ◴[15 Oct 24 11:17 UTC] No.41847341{3}[source]▶
It's not quite that simple. The line isn't quite as hard between seed and 'nut'. Namely people may commonly refer to things as a nut when it is a seed.

e.g. a Peanut is a seed, as are almonds, cashews, walnuts.

replies(3): >>41847576 #>>41847805 #>>41849063 #
32. philipwhiuk ◴[15 Oct 24 11:30 UTC] No.41847409[source]▶
Not for long. Schools are looking at banning smartphones.
replies(1): >>41848261 #
33. joelanman ◴[15 Oct 24 11:50 UTC] No.41847542{3}[source]▶
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.carrotpop....
34. _heimdall ◴[15 Oct 24 11:55 UTC] No.41847576{4}[source]▶
This rabbit hole goes deep. Berries are particularly poorly named - stawberries, blackberries, and blueberries aren't actually berries but tomatoes and bananas are.
replies(3): >>41847592 #>>41847697 #>>41860939 #
35. barrkel ◴[15 Oct 24 11:57 UTC] No.41847592{5}[source]▶
This is only a problem if you mistake words for scientific classifications, instead of ways to convey meaning between communicating humans.

Very few people using the word "berry" are discussing scientific classifications. It would be worse, not better, to make terms more scientifically precise. Berry refers to small juicy fruits, often in bright colors.

replies(1): >>41848013 #
36. _heimdall ◴[15 Oct 24 11:57 UTC] No.41847595{3}[source]▶
The idea of banning a game because it can lead to bullying is ridiculous in my opinion.

Kids will be kids and bullies will always find an excuse to pick on someone if they want to. Just deal with it one-off when a game gets out of hand and let kids play games and learn social skills along the way.

replies(1): >>41849306 #
37. Oarch ◴[15 Oct 24 12:00 UTC] No.41847626[source]▶
Arguably with the steel conker endemic happening before us there are finally some valid health reasons...
38. umanwizard ◴[15 Oct 24 12:09 UTC] No.41847697{5}[source]▶
> stawberries, blackberries, and blueberries aren't actually berries

Yes they are

> tomatoes and bananas are

No they’re not.

The word “berry” is much older and more fundamental to language than the technical botanical definition that a tiny minority of people know or care about.

replies(1): >>41847806 #
39. ljf ◴[15 Oct 24 12:22 UTC] No.41847805{4}[source]▶
Very true - I'll admit that while I knew that peanuts are legumes not nuts, I didn't know that the others you mentioned were not nuts. I learn something new every day (and my son has a severe allergy to many of them - though not all - so I should know these things!).

And while I know my son can safely play with conkers, we most certainly have not tried to eat one!

replies(1): >>41849524 #
40. _heimdall ◴[15 Oct 24 12:22 UTC] No.41847806{6}[source]▶
You clearly understand that there's a difference between the colloquial name and the scientific definition. In the context of the GP comment, the discussion was related to nuts that are poorly named (like peanuts and tree nuts that are actually seeds).

Strawberries aren't berries and tomatoes are. You can say that's wrong all you like, but in the context of how they are botanically classified rather than what we named them you're incorrect.

replies(1): >>41848883 #
41. Symbiote ◴[15 Oct 24 12:27 UTC] No.41847850{3}[source]▶
The headteacher said himself that story was misreported — he bought the goggles as a joke.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/dec/09/conker...

42. tsukikage ◴[15 Oct 24 12:31 UTC] No.41847892[source]▶
...I mean, you could play conkers with smartphones. They even have that strap attachment built right in. Might have to outlaw old Nokias though.
43. _heimdall ◴[15 Oct 24 12:49 UTC] No.41848013{6}[source]▶
I was sticking with the context of the GP though. Maybe its pedantic to point out that many berries aren't technically berries, but that's much the same as the point that many nuts are actually seeds.
44. dgacmu ◴[15 Oct 24 13:02 UTC] No.41848128{3}[source]▶
I would like to introduce you to my six year old.

Mind you, it's much more likely the two phones involved would be mine and my wife's.

45. Cthulhu_ ◴[15 Oct 24 13:15 UTC] No.41848248{3}[source]▶
I've seen enough clips of kids playing with their phone to drop them in the water to know that they probably would.
46. Cthulhu_ ◴[15 Oct 24 13:16 UTC] No.41848261{3}[source]▶
They are where I live, both elementary and secondary schools. The first results are promising; kids have more concentration, interact socially with each other more, etc.

I mean if it's a school where they also have to carry laptops and use digital schedules I don't think it makes a difference, but it's a good first step.

One issue was that each phone also has a camera, so people would seek out / make trouble on purpose, spy on people and post it online, etc.

47. umanwizard ◴[15 Oct 24 14:18 UTC] No.41848883{7}[source]▶
The botanical classification is irrelevant outside of papers in botany journals.

If I made up a new, niche meaning of already-existing words, and tried to claim everyone else was using them wrong, you would think I was crazy.

replies(1): >>41849061 #
48. _heimdall ◴[15 Oct 24 14:35 UTC] No.41849061{8}[source]▶
> If I made up a new, niche meaning of already-existing words, and tried to claim everyone else was using them wrong, you would think I was crazy

People do this all the time, though it makes me feel old rather than crazy.

replies(1): >>41849081 #
49. robin_reala ◴[15 Oct 24 14:35 UTC] No.41849063{4}[source]▶
On this subject, I’d recommend Richard Osman’s lecture on nuts for “The Unbelievable Truth”: https://www.reddit.com/user/pfobwpfo/comments/18ohqi2/nuts/
50. umanwizard ◴[15 Oct 24 14:37 UTC] No.41849081{9}[source]▶
Imagine if someone said "this chair is an object", and you told them they were wrong, because in Object-Oriented Programming, an "object" is an abstract entity in a computer program, not a thing in the physical world.

They have never heard of object-oriented programming and yet, they're not wrong. You're the one who is wrong by assuming the terms made up by a niche field override common language used by everyone.

replies(2): >>41850433 #>>41850883 #
51. dspillett ◴[15 Oct 24 14:58 UTC] No.41849306{4}[source]▶
> The idea of banning a game because it can lead to bullying is ridiculous in my opinion.

It was more banning the tool without which the game can not be played, but yes as someone who was subjected to bullies at various times in my education history I can say you are right about them just finding something else.

I didn't say it was right, just that it happened.

The problem that causes these ineffectual bans is simply that the school's head (and other authorities) feel the need to be seen to be proactively doing something, anything, about the bullying problem they otherwise officially deny having¹, especially when local press have got onto the issue and are stirring up angst amongst the parents, and when they can't think of anything better a target is picked and a simple ban gets announced.

----

[1] It always amazed me how soon after a claim that we don't have a bullying problem in the school, there would be a call to celebrate an action that was supposed to reduce the bullying problem we didn't have…

52. joncrocks ◴[15 Oct 24 15:19 UTC] No.41849524{5}[source]▶
Ultimately it depends on the semantic meaning when you say 'nut'. They are not 'nuts' in terms of the technical definition, but they are in terms of 'what most people think of when you say nut'.

There's also some things with nut in their name. c.f. Nutmeg, coconut.

As others have mentioned, same kind of deal with 'berry'.

And to follow up, if you're travelling abroad it's worth noting that some countries have different naming structures/separate out the families of 'nuts'. So be careful if you're asking if something has 'nuts' in, there can be a language barrier. e.g. tree nuts vs. Lupins (peanut family).

53. aspenmayer ◴[15 Oct 24 16:42 UTC] No.41850433{10}[source]▶
Clearly they're wrong because this chair is a table.
54. _heimdall ◴[15 Oct 24 17:28 UTC] No.41850883{10}[source]▶
Chairs and OOP have nothing to do with each other. Fruits, seeds, etc are plants and fall into botanical definitions.

I get the point that we call them berries even if they aren't, but your comparison to OOP is apples and oranges.

replies(2): >>41851164 #>>41853185 #
55. umanwizard ◴[15 Oct 24 17:55 UTC] No.41851164{11}[source]▶
> I get the point that we call them berries even if they aren't

That wasn’t the point. The point is that they are berries, by the real definition of berries, which is not the different definition used by a tiny minority of mostly irrelevant people in a specific context.

What reason is there to prefer the botanical definition to the common one (that says a berry is a small colorful fruit)? I can see none. On the other hand, I can see many reasons to prefer the common definition: it is older, it is used by far more people, and it more closely corresponds to what we care about in real life (because almost everyone spends more time preparing and eating meals than they do classifying plant parts, so the culinary meaning is more important).

Scientists are not in charge of the whole human experience. They do not get to decide on behalf of everyone else that the salient defining characteristic of berries is not how they taste or what dishes you would use them to prepare, but rather what part of the plant they come from.

replies(1): >>41851762 #
56. 0xdeadbeefbabe ◴[15 Oct 24 18:14 UTC] No.41851401[source]▶
Kids can get bored of smart phones too.
57. _heimdall ◴[15 Oct 24 18:44 UTC] No.41851762{12}[source]▶
Do you take the same issue with the original comment pointing out that what are usually called nuts are actually seeds?
replies(1): >>41852884 #
58. pvaldes ◴[15 Oct 24 19:11 UTC] No.41852052{3}[source]▶
can easily asphyxiate a child
59. umanwizard ◴[15 Oct 24 20:42 UTC] No.41852884{13}[source]▶
> as conkers are seeds (not a nut) - so shouldn't be an issue for someone with a nut allergy

I take issue with this, and in fact we can see how the pedantic scientific meaning caused confusion about the actual underlying facts: people with allergies to what are commonly called "nuts" can in fact be allergic to things that according to the pedantic scientific definition are "seeds". So the OP is actually wrong to say it shouldn't be an issue for someone with a nut allergy!

replies(1): >>41853960 #
60. ted_dunning ◴[15 Oct 24 21:12 UTC] No.41853185{11}[source]▶
Really?

An apple is a pome but an orange is a hesperidium. Different things entirely.

61. _heimdall ◴[15 Oct 24 22:56 UTC] No.41853960{14}[source]▶
Yep that's totally fair, that could be confusing since "nut allergy" isn't based on scientific definitions.

Though it would make my day if someone tells me they can't have peanuts because of a legume allergy.

62. calfuris ◴[16 Oct 24 16:21 UTC] No.41860939{5}[source]▶
I disagree with this on multiple levels. For one, the word "berry" has multiple definitions, and I don't see why the botanical definition should be the only one that counts. If anything, the culinary one should have primacy, as that is the one that is far more relevant to far more people. Botanical jargon is useful to botanists but not very useful in general. And to descend to pedantry, blueberries should not have been on your list of examples. They are berries in both the culinary and the botanical senses of the word.