Jeopardy! score corrections

[Otm Shank]

I've noticed this on past score corrections, but today it became more obvious:

A player is ruled incorrect on an answer, and someone else then answers correctly. Then, when the first player is ruled to have provided a correct answer, they retroactively adjust the score of the player who was docked, but they don't retract the points for the player originally ruled correct. In other words, the person credited with the follow-up answer would not have been able to answer correctly had the question been ruled correct in the first place.

In today's episode, two players were retroactively ruled correct, with the third player already being credited for a correct answer. I've seen a wash when all three answer wrong or nobody rings in, but I've never seen triple credit for the same question.

Although it might seem a bit evil, it really isn't unfair to retract the money. If anything, the person who gave the "unexpected" answer who is retroactively credited is disadvantaged, since they, through no fault of their own, do not gain on one player due to a judging error.

[Matt Ottinger]

I benefited from exactly the scenario you described when I played my game in 2004, and thought at the time that it was a bit unfair in my favor for exactly the reasons you describe.

[Jeremy Nelson]

That really does suck, especially in games where a runaway could have been prevented.

In College Bowl, they give the team who was ruled incorrectly their due points, plus a bonus of equal value to what they would have received. The team who got the rebound gets docked for the tossup and any points they received on the bonus. Harsh? A little. Fair? Absolutely.

Maybe it's because they don't want the viewer to have to keep up with all of the CARAAAAAZY math going on, but I think that's something that should be instituted, especially if it determines whether Final Jeopardy is competitive or not.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Jeremy Nelson\' post=\'243029\' date=\'Jun 24 2010, 08:32 PM\']Maybe it's because they don't want the viewer to have to keep up with all of the CARAAAAAZY math going on, but I think that's something that should be instituted, especially if it determines whether Final Jeopardy is competitive or not.[/quote]
Agreed. I don't see how it's any more confusing to say "So you get $4000 for the right answer, we'll give Bob his $2000 back for his wrong one, and we'll have to take Phil's $2000 away since you were correct first. The scores as you see them are correct."

[Kevin Prather]

Deep down, I agree with you guys, but here's a Devil's Advocate for you. The rebounder not only got a correct response, but the response the judges were indeed looking for. Based on that, it seems fair to let him keep his money for that, no? Why make him lose credit for his definitively correct response just because the other player's response was technically correct?

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'243034\' date=\'Jun 24 2010, 09:32 PM\']Why make him lose credit for his definitively correct response just because the other player's response was technically correct?[/quote]
Because if the correct ruling had been made in the first place, the second player never would have had the opportunity to answer. Period.

[chad1m]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'243037\' date=\'Jun 25 2010, 12:51 AM\']Because if the correct ruling had been made in the first place, the second player never would have had the opportunity to answer. Period.[/quote]But it wasn't. And how's that the contestant's fault? "Yo, Harry, it's not my fault that you and the producers didn't have that answer at the ready. Now give me my money that I earned originally and fairly."

[Jay Temple]

^ What he said. (If I were a producer, I'd take it off the score board, but award it to the player in real money.)

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'243038\' date=\'Jun 24 2010, 10:08 PM\']But it wasn't. And how's that the contestant's fault?[/quote]Lots of things happen to me that I wouldn't call them "fair". And you just move along. If the show says you mentally roll back the tape to the point when the original answer should have been called correct and everything after that didn't happen, then that's what you do.

Everyone who picks up a button is playing under the same rules, so it isn't like the rug is being pulled out from under anyone.

[tvrandywest]

It's probable that if this kind of corrected ruling sufficiently affected the outcome to where it likely cost a player the game, that player would be given the opportunity to compete again on a future show. It's a standard S&P policy on most shows I've worked.

Randy
tvrandywest.com

[Jeremy Nelson]

[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'243038\' date=\'Jun 25 2010, 12:08 AM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'243037\' date=\'Jun 25 2010, 12:51 AM\']Because if the correct ruling had been made in the first place, the second player never would have had the opportunity to answer. Period.[/quote]But it wasn't. And how's that the contestant's fault? "Yo, Harry, it's not my fault that you and the producers didn't have that answer at the ready. Now give me my money that I earned originally and fairly."
[/quote]
But then what's the point of the ruling? Basically, the way it is now, by giving a correct response that wasn't originally taken, you can't extend your lead/catch up to the leader because the system awarded you both with a correct response. If you're down by $1000, answer a $2000 clue incorrectly, and John gets it on the rebound, you find yourself down by $5000. Even after the correction, you're still down by $1000, which leads me to believe the correction is just a way of negging the clue altogether without having to scramble for a new one.

Like I said, it may be harsh to the player who got the clue on the rebound, but it's the right thing to do.