Ficina
I know I got the Everton result wrong (don't need to be told). I'm not trying to prove anything nor am I trying to convince anyone I'm right. I only wrote how I understand the radicality.

according to your reasoning, that would mean the result would be favourable for the Asc underdogs, Everton, but it wasn't.

The chart being radical was one of the reasons I thought that Everton wouldn't be beaten. I do acknowledge that my way of looking at charts didn't work in this instance, unless I gave the AC to Chelsea.

Which team is in possession or command of the bridge from the start? As a thumb rule, in football, we seem to be allocating this team to the ascendant

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, Andrew

Andrew

A football match is a two-way affair, like a marriage or the crossing of a bridge. As if there were two towns on either side of a river, which side of the river owns the bridge? Which team is in possession or command of the brigde from the start? As a thumb rule, in football, we seem to be allocating this team to the ascendant, but who wins the football match or is left standing on the bridge after the battle has been fought - that is the question

Nicely put. You do have a way with words. One thing I realise is that there are no rigid, hard and fast rules we can stick with. Every chart is different and there're different ways of looking at it.

Sorry, Gem, I wasn't meaning to get at you. I got the result wrong too. In fact we all did! This is just a retrospective to try and give us pointers for the future

Ficina wrote:

Which team is in possession or command of the bridge from the start? As a thumb rule, in football, we seem to be allocating this team to the ascendant

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, Andrew

He means faves, I think.

One thing I realise is that there are no rigid, hard and fast rules we can stick with. Every chart is different and there're different ways of looking at it.

That's very true, Gem, and it's what makes it so difficult to know which testimonies work and when because they appear in different combinations in different charts

Ficina wrote: This is just a retrospective to try and give us pointers for the future

I got angry (yes I'm short-tempered and hot-headed) becuase your posts implied your way was right and mine was wrong. I appreciate different approaches and do want to understand why you and Andrew think that

radicality works for the favourite, who is not necessarily the ascendant!

Any help'll be greatly appreciated

I absolutely agree there's no such thing as one correct way and I think this radicality idea is still in the experimental stages.

I'll have a bash at explaining how I see it, based on what Andrew has said.

If the chart is radical it's as though all is right with the world and conditions are favourable for the expected outcome to occur, i.e. the favourite wins. Obviously other testimonies (if any) then have to be considered. If the chart isn't radical, then it's as if something isn't quite right and conditions are not ideal for the favourite to win. It may be a draw or underdogs win. As Andrew puts it, non-radicality moves the result away from the favourite.

How does that sound?

Not bad especially if faves are odds-on.

the expected outcome to occur, i.e. the favourite wins.

Most of the time though, we can't expect anything. What about the time when either side is not clear favourite?

If the chart is radical it's as though all is right with the world and conditions are favourable for the expected outcome to occur, i.e. the favourite wins.... If the chart isn't radical, then it's as if something isn't quite right and conditions are not ideal for the favourite to win.

This is all viewed from faves' perspectives ( chart being identified with faves). It makes sense only if the AC is given to faves.

I'm though, actually reviewing my practice of giving home team AC, when away teams are faves, like yesterday's game between Everton-Chelsea.

Thanks anyway for the explanation Much appreciated. I do now see your way of looking at this.

One more thing I forgot to comment this morning:

For event charts he says "Forget essential dignity, forget accidental dignity, forget receptions. They simply don't work in these charts." (p.82)

JF contradicts himself when he goes on to say that bodily placement and house placement are very powerful testimonies, as they are in essence the same as accidental diginities.

JF contradicts himself when he goes on to say that bodily placement and house placement are very powerful testimonies, as they are in essence the same as accidental diginities.

In all justice, he is not... he is stating his model of events sports charts, which cannot be judged as an horary.

So, if a planet is angular or in exile, etc, nothing of this matters. The only thing that matter is position, and this is very far from being accidental dignity. A planet in his model can be cadent, but by his antiscia being in the ASC, giving the victory to the favorites.

For some reason I received no notification of the discussion going on here. I can see there are a lot of great contributions. Everyone is offering their ideas and all the different approaches are extremely valuable.

Re. Are essential dignities and receptions relevant in event charts?
I do have an article on net from 1993: "A Brawl at the Night Club Saturn." It is an event chart where a doorman collapsed at a nightclub after a brawl with one of the guests. The doorman dies and the guest is held under the suspicion of assult. This chart applies mutual reception, interception, hayiz and several other interesting features. In the end it is Jupiter in his own face that gets the guest out of the mess. www.astronor.com/saturn.htm

Ficina wrote:
Quote:
Which team is in possession or command of the bridge from the start? As a thumb rule, in football, we seem to be allocating this team to the ascendant

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, Andrew

While the locals may claim to own the bridge, they are still at the bow of their prince upon his arrival. Sorry, I notice I was slightly vague. I meant that whoever commands the brigde at the start of the game, whether the home team or the favourite, gets the ascendant. This seems to require an evaluation of the match before it starts. I still think this is rather difficult but our collective ideas have been much clearer on this matter of late.

Gem said: I appreciate different approaches and do want to understand why you and Andrew think that
Quote:
radicality works for the favourite, who is not necessarily the ascendant!

Any help'll be greatly appreciated

Andrew, any chance you could give your own explanation of this? Since my view is based on what you've always said, i.e. radicality supports the fave, non-radicality moves the result away from the faves, I'd be interested to hear your take on it. No obligation of course