Yet another Pyramid question

[Twentington]

$250 box says THINGS THAT ARE SCRAPPED. The contestant misreads the box as "Scraped", but doesn't get a "read it again" from Dick and starts giving clues for "Scraped". Afterward, he does his typical walk-over, and starts giving clues for "Scraped" too, until someone from the sidelines tells him it's "scrapped".

My question is: Should they have gotten a do-over with a different $250 category since Dick (and apparently the judge) never realized they were misreading?

(And what would you give for that anyway? Only thing I can think of is something like "a junk car" or "recyclable metal".)

[parliboy]

Not the judge's job to tell the contestant that they've misread. Not Dick's, either. It is nice when they catch it, but there is no requirement to do so.

[Jay Temple]

In principle, I agree with parliboy. However, if this were the $100K and there was any possibility that the contestant could have had a qualifying time, I'd replay it, simply because there was a precedent of Dick alerting clue-givers.

No one ever brings this up, but I like Dick doing (being allowed to do) this. While intrinsically there's nothing unfair about letting the team proceed, it makes better viewing if they're corrected in progress.

[chris319]

Not the judge's job to tell the contestant that they've misread. Not Dick's, either. It is nice when they catch it, but there is no requirement to do so.

We've gotten into a donnybrook about this before (sorry for the metaphor). Have you read the Pyramid bible? You're probably correct, but if you haven't read the bible you're making an uninformed assumption.

[Dbacksfan12]

(And what would you give for that anyway? Only thing I can think of is something like "a junk car" or "recyclable metal".)

A TV pilot.  A new skyscraper.  An expensive project.

[Kevin Prather]

Not the judge's job to tell the contestant that they've misread. Not Dick's, either. It is nice when they catch it, but there is no requirement to do so.

We've gotten into a donnybrook about this before (sorry for the metaphor). Have you read the Pyramid bible? You're probably correct, but if you haven't read the bible you're making an uninformed assumption.

But it is the judge's job to buzz the team if they continue to give clues that don't fit the category, and that is undeniable.

[Eric Paddon]

(And what would you give for that anyway? Only thing I can think of is something like "a junk car" or "recyclable metal".)

A TV pilot.  A new skyscraper.  An expensive project.

An old ocean liner.    An old battleship.

[clemon79]

But it is the judge's job to buzz the team if they continue to give clues that don't fit the category, and that is undeniable.

I think he's talking about the other part, about their being no requirement to point out a misread.

[Kevin Prather]

But it is the judge's job to buzz the team if they continue to give clues that don't fit the category, and that is undeniable.

I think he's talking about the other part, about their being no requirement to point out a misread.

Understood. With regards to the "donnybrook", I think last time we had this donnybrook, Matt O said it best. "[It's] the simple issue of likelihood. I don't need to have read the California vehicle code to know that I should stop at a red light."

[clemon79]

Understood. With regards to the "donnybrook", I think last time we had this donnybrook, Matt O said it best. "[It's] the simple issue of likelihood. I don't need to have read the California vehicle code to know that I should stop at a red light."

As the person involved in said donnybrook, I agree, but I also admit to the possibility that this particular issue might be a little more gray-area than that one was.

[Kevin Prather]

As the person involved in said donnybrook, I agree, but I also admit to the possibility that this particular issue might be a little more gray-area than that one was.

I suppose. I just can't see how "We're gonna give you a do-over because we neglected to hold your hand." could possibly happen.

[clemon79]

I suppose. I just can't see how "We're gonna give you a do-over because we neglected to hold your hand." could possibly happen.

No, but I'm willing to entertain the possibility that language along the line of "If Giver misreads the clue, they will be prompted by Host to re-read the clue" is in there.

I don't think it is, mind you (and neither does Chris), but I think there is a reasonable enough chance to say that the converse cannot be stated as irrevocable fact.

[parliboy]

@chris319:

You make a fair point. And the only real response I have is to ask: since you were in the business, do you know of any shows that would require the judge to correct in such a situation?  I know this doesn't give us anything definitive, but it is still constructive.

[Twentington]

As the person involved in said donnybrook, I agree, but I also admit to the possibility that this particular issue might be a little more gray-area than that one was.

I suppose. I just can't see how "We're gonna give you a do-over because we neglected to hold your hand." could possibly happen.

I hardly think a "read it again!" is holding the team's hand, since there's a precedent of Dick doing it. In this case, he didn't because he also misread it, and the judge never buzzed them for giving clues that didn't fit the category.

Isn't discussing Pyramid hypotheticals fun?

[knagl]

Would it have been fair (and in the spirit of the rules) for the judge to buzz them because the clue-giver read the word incorrectly?  I don't think a do-over was in order, but I couldn't see buzzing the clue-giver in this situation, either.