If you showed me that picture with no category title and the ESPN blurred out, I would've guessed either three members of The Clash or three non-blonde members of Blondie.
Monday, June 5, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall
- opusthepenguin
- The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
- Posts: 10319
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
- Location: Shawnee, KS
- Contact:
-
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 9:54 am
Re: Monday, June 5, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
So in a category called THE HUMAN BODY or THE BODY HUMAN (which has been used three times this season), you think the contestants should have to name which human's body the clue is referring to?
I'm with Sherm. Without an explanation from the host, naming the players should be an acceptable response to this clue as written. And as far as Jared's response is concerned, I'm not even totally convinced by the point that there are three teammates in the picture. The clue didn't say "the three teammates" or "all the teammates."
- LucarioSnooperVixey
- Carrying Letters and Lemons
- Posts: 3513
- Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 8:41 pm
- Location: New Jersey
Re: Monday, June 5, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Missed a few clues Championship Team and Movie Continent $400.(Should have been $2000 in my opinion.)
DD: 3/3
FJ:
DD: 3/3
FJ:
Douglas Squasoni
-
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 12:19 am
Re: Monday, June 5, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Missed the poetry DD with with "greater than light," which I still think sounds better in context. Would have been vexed if I had gotten that as a DD on the show; on a regular clue, I probably would have clammed for not being sure of the exact wording.
If I were Jared, though, I'd make the argument that "team" can be defined as "two or more people working together." E.g., "That Gretzky and Messier made quite a team together, didn't they?"
An explanation like "you have to name the team" would have been nice, but the structure of the clues sort of implies that that's going to be the correct response; otherwise the clues re impossibly open-ended .If you disregard the category, then the answer to the $200 clue could be, "Who are baseball players?" It sucks for Jared that he was penalized for giving an answer that required more knowledge than the clue was asking for, but, if you're up there, you also have to realize that J! is absolutely not going to have a clue where the correct response is to identify Mark Messier from a photo.A Wray wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 5:44 pm Bamaman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 11:39 am
The category title was THE CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM. Gretzky and Messier was not the name of the team.
So in a category called THE HUMAN BODY or THE BODY HUMAN (which has been used three times this season), you think the contestants should have to name which human's body the clue is referring to?
I'm with Sherm. Without an explanation from the host, naming the players should be an acceptable response to this clue as written. And as far as Jared's response is concerned, I'm not even totally convinced by the point that there are three teammates in the picture. The clue didn't say "the three teammates" or "all the teammates."
If I were Jared, though, I'd make the argument that "team" can be defined as "two or more people working together." E.g., "That Gretzky and Messier made quite a team together, didn't they?"
-
- Wet Paper Bag Charmer
- Posts: 2727
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:27 pm
Re: Monday, June 5, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
This is silly, the category was Championship Team. The Gretzky/Messier clue was the third one played in that category and the answer to the first two clues were teams. It was obvious what they were going for.
Contestants make mistakes like these all the time by not paying close enough attention to the category. No different than "G"eography for example and giving Paris as an answer.
Contestants make mistakes like these all the time by not paying close enough attention to the category. No different than "G"eography for example and giving Paris as an answer.
- AndyTheQuizzer
- Lots and Lots of Interviews
- Posts: 2594
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:01 am
- Location: St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Monday, June 5, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
First of all—this episode was taped before the strike began.opusthepenguin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 10:50 am Yeah, but you hate to ask one of them to put down their sign and come inside and check.
Second of all—is this supposed to be a joke? Because if it is, it's not funny.
-
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 9:54 am
Re: Monday, June 5, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
So, again, if the category is THE HUMAN BODY, and they show a picture of a uvula with the clue "The organ seen here," are the contestants expected to respond, "What is the body of Tom Williamson of Shaker Heights, Ohio?"
I agree that the two previous clues made it clear what they were going for. That's the only reason I got it. A clue shouldn't require you to have seen other clues in the category to know what the heck they're looking for.
- jeff6286
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 5228
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:34 pm
- Location: Indianapolis, IN
Re: Monday, June 5, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
It's true people mess it up all the time but I also don't love the writers leaning heavy on categories where the clue can't stand on its own.Golf wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 12:28 am This is silly, the category was Championship Team. The Gretzky/Messier clue was the third one played in that category and the answer to the first two clues were teams. It was obvious what they were going for.
Contestants make mistakes like these all the time by not paying close enough attention to the category. No different than "G"eography for example and giving Paris as an answer.
Question: "Who are Wayne Gretzky and Mark Messier?"
Answer: In 1985, the teammates seen here.
Yes he in fact only gave 2/3 of the pictured teammates but otherwise his response is a better question for the answer given. Making the category "THE CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM" and essentially saying you have to fill those words into each clue yourself, it's a very common practice, but it essentially breaks the answer/question format which is the entire premise of the show.
- opusthepenguin
- The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
- Posts: 10319
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
- Location: Shawnee, KS
- Contact:
Re: Monday, June 5, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
I don't think the clue categories can be interpreted that restrictively. Take the recent STATE OF THE UNION category where the correct responses were Gettysburg, Kansas, California, Garibaldi, and Vermont. The clues were about states of the union just as in this game the clues were about championship teams. Just because some correct responses were actual states doesn't mean that every clue was going to point to an actual state. And just because some correct responses were team names doesn't mean that every clue is going to require an actual team name. When a clue asks for "the teammates seen here" it should not be wrong to name the teammates seen here.Golf wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 12:28 am This is silly, the category was Championship Team. The Gretzky/Messier clue was the third one played in that category and the answer to the first two clues were teams. It was obvious what they were going for.
Contestants make mistakes like these all the time by not paying close enough attention to the category. No different than "G"eography for example and giving Paris as an answer.
As another example, on Friday
just in case someone hasn't seen Friday's game
we had a category called WOMEN AUTHORS. The correct responses were William Shakespeare, Prince Edward Island, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, George Eliot, and Colleen Hoover.
-
- Undefeated in Reruns
- Posts: 8941
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Monday, June 5, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
I can't come up with a justification for feeling this way, but I feel like if the clue were asking for their names, the text would have been "The teammates seen here in 1985" rather than "In 1985, the teammates seen here."
It's similar to how I feel about the time David Traini went to the category EXPERTISE OF AREAS in his UToC round 2 game and jumped straight to the DD: the clue was "It's the area of a Major League Baseball infield (the part enclosed by the baselines)" and he responded with, "What is the diamond?" only to be told the correct response was 8,100 square feet.
I remember someone on the Sony board, within the context of some discussion about the dangers of jumping into categories where one doesn't know what it's about yet where that clue was brought up as an example, asked why his response shouldn't be accepted, and I realized that "It's the area of a Major League Baseball infield (the part enclosed by the baselines)" does not quite ask for the same thing as "It's the area of a Major League Baseball infield enclosed by the baselines"; in my mind, putting the baseline clarification in parentheses pins the clue as asking only for the area of the area, and not the name of the area.
That being said, if Jared had named all three people in the picture, I think he would have deserved credit.
It's similar to how I feel about the time David Traini went to the category EXPERTISE OF AREAS in his UToC round 2 game and jumped straight to the DD: the clue was "It's the area of a Major League Baseball infield (the part enclosed by the baselines)" and he responded with, "What is the diamond?" only to be told the correct response was 8,100 square feet.
I remember someone on the Sony board, within the context of some discussion about the dangers of jumping into categories where one doesn't know what it's about yet where that clue was brought up as an example, asked why his response shouldn't be accepted, and I realized that "It's the area of a Major League Baseball infield (the part enclosed by the baselines)" does not quite ask for the same thing as "It's the area of a Major League Baseball infield enclosed by the baselines"; in my mind, putting the baseline clarification in parentheses pins the clue as asking only for the area of the area, and not the name of the area.
That being said, if Jared had named all three people in the picture, I think he would have deserved credit.
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 906
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:39 pm
Re: Monday, June 5, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
The other part of it is I knew enough about hockey that I knew Gretzky and Messier by sight, and I thought they were being interviewed. I never saw that Gretzky was holding the mic until I saw the photograph on here. I know old sports but if I was going to have to shot to name a third, I would said Jari Kurri with those two, but I have no idea what he looked like other than a "17". Paul Coffey, never happening.
They have a category like this and they show a picture of Joe Namath with, "championship winner here." Most are all going with Namath before the Jets.
The clue was lazy, and if you hit it first. You are not thinking team based on the phrasing, though the Oilers were a championship team through that timeframe.
Like others have said, I think the clues should be able to stand alone. Without express direction that "you are naming the championship team" with each clue. This has the feel of a "Gotcha" type clue based on phrasing. Also, based on category, there is no reason to think one of the clues couldn't have been a picture of Joe Namath with a clue of "New York Jet champion shown here."
They have a category like this and they show a picture of Joe Namath with, "championship winner here." Most are all going with Namath before the Jets.
The clue was lazy, and if you hit it first. You are not thinking team based on the phrasing, though the Oilers were a championship team through that timeframe.
Like others have said, I think the clues should be able to stand alone. Without express direction that "you are naming the championship team" with each clue. This has the feel of a "Gotcha" type clue based on phrasing. Also, based on category, there is no reason to think one of the clues couldn't have been a picture of Joe Namath with a clue of "New York Jet champion shown here."
-
- Wet Paper Bag Charmer
- Posts: 2727
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:27 pm
Re: Monday, June 5, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
Yes, the clue could have been written better.Sherm wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 6:47 pm Like others have said, I think the clues should be able to stand alone. Without express direction that "you are naming the championship team" with each clue. This has the feel of a "Gotcha" type clue based on phrasing. Also, based on category, there is no reason to think one of the clues couldn't have been a picture of Joe Namath with a clue of "New York Jet champion shown here."
And I could see Jeopardy showing a picture of Joe Namath and asking for his name. But in 2023 Jeopardy will never ever show a picture of Mark Messier and Paul Coffey from 38 years ago and ask for their names.
- econgator
- Let's Go Mets!
- Posts: 10673
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:32 am
Re: Monday, June 5, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
That's who I guess the third was.Sherm wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 6:47 pm The other part of it is I knew enough about hockey that I knew Gretzky and Messier by sight, and I thought they were being interviewed. I never saw that Gretzky was holding the mic until I saw the photograph on here. I know old sports but if I was going to have to shot to name a third, I would said Jari Kurri with those two,
-
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 12:19 am
Re: Monday, June 5, 2023 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)
That's good point; to my way of thinking, the version as written has "in 1985" qualifying the entire phrase, whereas the alternative just means that "in 1985" was when they were seen in that particular picture. It fits with looking for the (championship) team, because Gretzky et al. only qualify as part of a championship team in certain years, one of them being 1985.seaborgium wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 3:30 pm I can't come up with a justification for feeling this way, but I feel like if the clue were asking for their names, the text would have been "The teammates seen here in 1985" rather than "In 1985, the teammates seen here."
One difference between this category and THE BODY HUMAN and WOMEN AUTHORS and things like that: in a category like WOMEN AUTHORS, even if the correct response isn't a woman author, there's going to be a woman author mentioned in the clue. If you accept Gretzky/Messier/Coffey as a valid answer to this clue, then there's no reference to a championship team in either the clue or the response. There's a principle of legal interpretation that a statute shouldn't be construed to have words in it that don't contribute meaning; I'm going to make up a similar rule that you can't reasonably expect a response to be right if neither it nor the clue has anything to do with the category.
In any event, I still wouldn't be able to get past the fact that "Gretzky and Messier" are not "the teammates seen here"; they're some of the teammates seen there. For anyone arguing that Jared's response should have been judged correct, consider a clue exactly the same as this one, but change the year to 1927, and swap the picture to this one: https://img.mlbstatic.com/mlb-images/im ... 9aq2hn.jpg. Does naming two people get this one correct?