Jeopardy scoring corrections

[gameshowcrazy]

On Thursday's Jeopardy, there was a scoring correction, and I was wondering if anyone has any opinions on why they do what they do (or if you know the real answer from someone who works on the show).

This situation involves contestant A giving an answer that is not accepted, and contestant B gets scored a correct answer on the bounce.  Then at the next stoppage of play, Alex tells contestant A "your answer was found to be correct, so we are giving you back the $800 you lost, plus another $800 for the correct answer."  Yet no money is taken away from contestant B, money they would not have received if contestant A was given the correct answer.

I've also seen this situation:

Contestant A gives an answer that is not accepted, and contestant B rings in and also gives a wrong answer.  Then at the next stoppage of play, Alex tells contestant A "your answer was found to be correct, so we are giving you back the $800 you lost, plus another $800 for the correct answer."  Next Alex turns to contestant B and says "we are also giving you back the $800 you lost because if we had scored contestant A's correct answer, you would not have had the opportunity to give an incorrect answer."

I know game shows can only do so much to "get it right every time" and they have to come up with something to correct their mistakes.  Jeopardy is among the best shows ever for doing this, but I'm wondering what you think of this?

[Matt Ottinger]

This seems to be a place where Jeopardy seems to be more interested in appearing fair than in actually being fair.  The game I played had a third, similar situation.  Contestant A (Ken) missed, then contestant B (me) also missed.  After the break, they gave us BOTH credit for a correct response, and even though I should only have gotten my original stake back (I wouldn't have answered if Ken had been right in the first place), they also gave me the value of the clue as well.

Seems wrong, but they value consistancy above all else, so maybe it's locked into their policy now.

[pyrfan]

Didn't this practice grow out of Alex Trebek not wanting to stop tape to check on the validity of an answer? I seem to recall reading that in one of the "Jeopardy!" books.

[whewfan]

It's true that Alex does not like to stop tape, at least not in the middle of a game. In the Jeopardy! tapings I went to 12 years ago, they waited until a commercial break to see if one of the contestant's responses was actually acceptable and correct, so they DO research if necessary at that time.

[Matt Ottinger]

Didn't this practice grow out of Alex Trebek not wanting to stop tape to check on the validity of an answer? I seem to recall reading that in one of the "Jeopardy!" books.

I don't know about Alex specifically, especially since he hasn't had a producer role in the show for decades.  But in a general sense, yes, the production team doesn't like to interrupt game flow.  With extremely rare exception, they'll stop to check a response only during commercial breaks, or after a Daily Double has been selected.  Contestants can ask them to check a response during commercial breaks as well.

Still, I think the OP was more interested in the way they adjust the scoring, not the stopdown itself.

[pyrfan]

Didn't this practice grow out of Alex Trebek not wanting to stop tape to check on the validity of an answer? I seem to recall reading that in one of the "Jeopardy!" books.

I don't know about Alex specifically, especially since he hasn't had a producer role in the show for decades.  But in a general sense, yes, the production team doesn't like to interrupt game flow.  With extremely rare exception, they'll stop to check a response only during commercial breaks, or after a Daily Double has been selected.  Contestants can ask them to check a response during commercial breaks as well.

Still, I think the OP was more interested in the way they adjust the scoring, not the stopdown itself.

Right, but I think the way they adjust the scoring is directly related to the production staff not wanting to stop tape in the middle of a round. If they were more accepting of stopdowns, the response in doubt could be resolved right then and there, which means no one else would get a chance to ring in if the contestant's response was deemed to be correct.

[Matt Ottinger]

If they were more accepting of stopdowns, the response in doubt could be resolved right then and there, which means no one else would get a chance to ring in if the contestant's response was deemed to be correct.

Realistically, though, the speed of play usually doesn't give them an opportunity to immediately stop and correct.  For every lingering moment where Alex looks to the judges' table (in which case a stop would be easy) there are lots of other times when play continues, and they don't realize until later that they may have made a mistake.

[SRIV94]

This seems to be a place where Jeopardy seems to be more interested in appearing fair than in actually being fair.  The game I played had a third, similar situation.  Contestant A (Ken) missed, then contestant B (me) also missed.  After the break, they gave us BOTH credit for a correct response, and even though I should only have gotten my original stake back (I wouldn't have answered if Ken had been right in the first place), they also gave me the value of the clue as well.

Seems wrong, but they value consistancy above all else, so maybe it's locked into their policy now.

Sorry to bump, but that situation reared its head today as well (guy was reimbursed for his incorrect answer that turned out to be correct, no money taken away from the player who shouldn't have gotten the money in the first place).  Granted, the outcome wasn't really affected since all three players got FJ correct, but it would've made for a different bid for the champ if she had $1200 less to play with.

That is something I never understood as to why only one person's score gets changed in that situation, policy or not.

[Kevin Prather]

Could part of the justification be that the player who scored gave THE correct answer (read: the answer they were looking for), not just A correct answer? And as such, should not have the money taken away?

[jage]

Getting credit is one thing, but you can't make up for the loss of control of the board that resulted from the errant ruling in the first place. Guess it just comes with the territory, but that could annoy me if I was on the wrong side of that stick and was in the middle of a category I was running.
Has there been a time where someone was brought back because of something like this? The one situation I could think of is if player A was ruled incorrect for an answer that was later found to be correct, then player B gives a correct answer and picks a DD clue following this.