Scoring on the rebound

[Mark B]

Query:

As we often see on J!, a question that is ruled incorrect during the game—leading to a rebound from another player—can later be ruled correct by the judges. In these cases, the score of the original player is later adjusted upward, while the score of the rebounder is not amended. This leads to an unfortunate variance from the scores the players “deserve” but is understandable as part of a “live” game, since the decisions that players make after the judging error (“should I ring in because I’m behind”, “should I hold off on a clue I’m unsure about because I’m ahead” etc.) are affected by their knowledge of what has happened.

My question is for those who have often been in the studio: Does it sometimes happen that Alex rules a question wrong (perhaps the variant response is not on his sheet) and allows the rebound only to have the judges immediately recognize that the original response was correct? Do they ever stop tape, credit the original right response and disallow the rebound? I know that there are often a lot of delays and shenanigans that we never see in the finished product, and I’m wondering if this is one of them. It would make sense, wouldn’t it, to avoid the mess in the first place if they could?

[teapot37]

It has been known to happen.

In this game, I said "doc" for 3-LETTER THE BETTER $200. Alex ruled me wrong and Lan (I think) rebounded with the intended answer "vet". The judges stopped tape and overruled Alex, so we immediately re-taped my ringing in and Alex's response, and it became as if Lan had never rung in at all.

[heelsrule1988]

This was a nice score off the rebound:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jApW6KfWJbs&t=0m28s

[dhkendall]

This was a nice score off the rebound:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jApW6KfWJbs&t=0m28s

LOL - "This video is not available for users in your country". Guess they don't want to tick off any Leafs fans (all none of them)

[Mark B]

It has been known to happen.

In this game, I said "doc" for 3-LETTER THE BETTER $200. Alex ruled me wrong and Lan (I think) rebounded with the intended answer "vet". The judges stopped tape and overruled Alex, so we immediately re-taped my ringing in and Alex's response, and it became as if Lan had never rung in at all.

Thanks teapot.

[reddpen]

This was a nice score off the rebound:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jApW6KfWJbs&t=0m28s

Here's another one in a different sport.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKvIR6Cxv70

Wish I could find the one where he puts back a teammate's missed free throw. The look of surprise and delight on his face was a wonder to behold.

[heelsrule1988]

Got to love Nate Robinson (or Krypto-Nate if you're Dwight Howard)... got to love even more the fact that that dunk was over the Wuffies.

You probably didn't even realize this, but you linked to a clip that took place in the same building as mine.

Not that State basketball belongs in there... but that's not a discussion that anyone here would care about. Are you a Washington fan, though?

LOL - "This video is not available for users in your country". Guess they don't want to tick off any Leafs fans (all none of them)

Aren't there some Torontonians on here? I think OntarioQuizzer is near there... perhaps he's a Leafs fan?

P.S. We'll see you on Friday night.

[RCraig]

I know that there are often a lot of delays and shenanigans that we never see in the finished product, and I’m wondering if this is one of them. It would make sense, wouldn’t it, to avoid the mess in the first place if they could?

I've never seen it happen like Chris described above. From a player's perspective, I would say: Yes, it would be better, but it's a tv show, so it's better for the show if you just continue even if it affects things like:

(“should I ring in because I’m behind”, “should I hold off on a clue I’m unsure about because I’m ahead” etc.)

What I believe is vastly more important is who gets next choice. What if the next clue is a DD? Who gets it? The first player that buzzed in with an (ultimately) judged correct answer? The player that was recognized as having control of the board? My guess is they give control to the player who gave the first correct answer, randomly replace the DD (as they do e.g. when Alex tells the wrong player to select and he/she chooses the DD) on the board, produce normally.

Now, what about a longer sequence than the next immediate clue. e.g. Player A = first player to buzz, ruled incorrect, but later correct. Player B = 2nd player to buzz, judged correct and given control of the board. Player C = didn't buzz on disputed question.

Let's imagine a scenario where Player B then picks a clue and Player B or Player C buzz and are correct. Iterate for say 7 questions until Player C gets a DD. Play usually stops here and Player A gets the points back and Player C gets the DD. Even if Player A would've went to the DD square with his or her next selection. That's just the way the game goes. You have to roll with it.

[AndyTheQuizzer]

Aren't there some Torontonians on here? I think OntarioQuizzer is near there... perhaps he's a Leafs fan?

While I do live an hour west of Toronto, the only circumstances that I would cheer for Toronto would be those where Toronto needs to win for the Montreal Canadiens to make the playoffs...

[bpmod]

While I do live an hour west of Toronto, the only circumstances that I would cheer for Toronto would be those where Toronto needs to win for the Montreal Canadiens to make the playoffs...

And we all know how often that happens.

Hey Andy! Good to see you!

Brian

[dhkendall]

While I do live an hour west of Toronto, the only circumstances that I would cheer for Toronto would be those where Toronto needs to win for the Montreal Canadiens to make the playoffs...

And we all know how often that happens.

Which are you referring to, Toronto winning or Montreal making the playoffs?

[econgator]

While I do live an hour west of Toronto, the only circumstances that I would cheer for Toronto would be those where Toronto needs to win for the Montreal Canadiens to make the playoffs...

And we all know how often that happens.

Which are you referring to, Toronto winning or Montreal making the playoffs?

Well, at least Toronto's baseball team has won something in the past 45 years ...

[AndyTheQuizzer]

Well, at least Toronto's baseball team has won something in the past 45 years ...

While I do cheer for the Blue Jays, I'm certain that my current avatar will answer all questions as to which hockey team I cheer for.

[bpmod]

Actually, what I meant was (although it was completely tongue-in-cheek) that Toronto's win could never help Montreal make the playoffs. Otherwise, Montreal could (also) never make the playoffs.

But I realized afterward, that that could easily happen. I also realized that sometimes my jokes just plain fall flat.

Yes, Toronto's baseball team has something in common with their hockey team, and it's not their ability to make the playoffs. It's their ability to make the NHL playoffs.

I cringe every fall when the fans and commentators and, well, everybody around here it seems, start with the "This is the year! This is the year we come in second from last!"

With a goal like that...

Brian

[opusthepenguin]

Query:

As we often see on J!, a question that is ruled incorrect during the game—leading to a rebound from another player—can later be ruled correct by the judges. In these cases, the score of the original player is later adjusted upward, while the score of the rebounder is not amended. This leads to an unfortunate variance from the scores the players “deserve” but is understandable as part of a “live” game, since the decisions that players make after the judging error (“should I ring in because I’m behind”, “should I hold off on a clue I’m unsure about because I’m ahead” etc.) are affected by their knowledge of what has happened.

It really bugs me when this happens. It can affect the game in subtle ways, as you mention. But it also has the potential to affect the game in unambiguous ways. E.g. a player might have a lock going into FJ because of undeserved points. Or a player might lack such a lock because another player has undeserved points. Or maybe it's just the "wrong" player who's ahead going into FJ. Or maybe a player is within 2/3 of the leader when he or she "shouldn't" be. Etc. etc.

Can anyone point to a case where undeserved points have clearly affected a game's outcome? Is that one of those situations where they bring a contestant back to compete again?

[legendneverdies]

Can anyone point to a case where undeserved points have clearly affected a game's outcome? Is that one of those situations where they bring a contestant back to compete again?

All the return situations I can recall are due to problems with the FInal J! clues, outside of one contestant a couple years ago who was sick and brought back after she was well enough to return.

[seaborgium]

Can anyone point to a case where undeserved points have clearly affected a game's outcome? Is that one of those situations where they bring a contestant back to compete again?

All the return situations I can recall are due to problems with the FInal J! clues, outside of one contestant a couple years ago who was sick and brought back after she was well enough to return.

In his fourth game, Bob Mesko was given (and missed) a flawed Daily Double in a situation that would have made the difference between third and first place, and was brought back a short while later.

Arianna Kelly said "What is iron?" on a clue for $800 about what metal in so-called "tin cans" was attracted by magnets. Alex told her to be more specific, and she said "iron ore" and was negged. Champ Melissa Prusi rebounded with "What is steel?" and got the $800. Arianna entered Final Jeopardy in third place behind Melissa's second by $2,200, $2,000, or $1,800, everyone got FJ right, first place underwagered, and Melissa won. Arianna came back a few months later. And I have a feeling in this case that they realized their mistake, but knew their procedure would be inadequate for setting things right (since Arianna would still trail Melissa with $1,600 more to her score, but would have led her if she'd been ruled correct in the first place). And they probably decided to see how FJ played out, and knew right at the end that they'd bring her back.

[opusthepenguin]

Arianna Kelly said "What is iron?" on a clue for $800 about what metal in so-called "tin cans" was attracted by magnets. Alex told her to be more specific, and she said "iron ore" and was negged. Champ Melissa Prusi rebounded with "What is steel?" and got the $800. Arianna entered Final Jeopardy in third place behind Melissa's second by $2,200, $2,000, or $1,800, everyone got FJ right, first place underwagered, and Melissa won. Arianna came back a few months later. And I have a feeling in this case that they realized their mistake, but knew their procedure would be inadequate for setting things right (since Arianna would still trail Melissa with $1,600 more to her score, but would have led her if she'd been ruled correct in the first place). And they probably decided to see how FJ played out, and knew right at the end that they'd bring her back.

[NOTE: This is an edited version of the original post due to omgwheelhouse reminding me: "When changing a miss to a get, add double the clue value." Seaborgium's quoted comment about "$1,600 more to her score" on an $800 clue was too subtle for me. I needed to be hit over the head. I hope I got it right this time.]

Here's the game: http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=2304

Scores going into FJ were:

Melissa Brandon Arianna
$13,200 $14,600 $11,000

As you note, a partial reversal (crediting Arianna but leaving Melissa's score alone) keeps Melissa ahead of Arianna going into FJ.

Melissa Brandon Arianna
$13,200 $14,600 $12,600

Whereas a full reversal (taking back points Melissa only gained due to the misruling) puts Arianna ahead:

Melissa Brandon Arianna
$12,400 $14,600 $12,600

And that's just what happened in the DJ round. There was already a questionable ruling in the SJ. The clue was "No trees grow above this "line" near the tops of mountains". Arianna's response "What is the tree line" was judged incorrect. Melissa got "timber line" on the rebound. But "tree line" is a perfectly acceptable synonym, even if it does repeat one of the words in the clue. That was only a $400 clue, so even a full reversal wouldn't have changed player positions going into FJ. But it may have contributed to a feeling of uncertainty on Arianna's part.

Still, any way you slice it, Arianna and Melissa were both behind the frontrunner going into FJ. So, as you note, the judges probably just decided to let it ride and hope it all worked out. But Brandon decided to torment them. He got FJ right, just as Melissa and Arianna did. BUT HE ONLY WAGERED $7,400!!!!! Aaaaaaarrrrrrgggggghhhhh!!!!! If he had just wagered to win, they could've slipped Arianna an extra $1,000 on the theory that she might have come in second instead of third and swept the whole thing under the rug.

[whoisalexjacob]

When changing a miss to a get, add double the clue value.

[opusthepenguin]

When changing a miss to a get, add double the clue value.

D'oh! I've corrected my post. Or at least I've changed it so the errors are different.