Ken Jennings Under Fire From ‘Jeopardy!’ Fans For Controversial Ruling

Since Alex Trebek’s demise in 2020, the general public hasn’t hesitated to name out his successors’ missteps. Ken Jennings lately took the helm because the everlasting host of Jeopardy!. Whereas followers have accepted Jennings with largely open arms, they’d some main criticism for the previous champ after a latest episode.

Ken Jennings Blurs Traces With ‘Jeopardy!’ Ruling

New Jeopardy! host Ken Jennings is in followers’ crosshairs after toeing the road on a controversial ruling. On Wednesday’s episode, Jennings allowed defending champion Luigi de Guzman to right himself on a solution. The clue learn: “Here’s a typical 19th-century landscape by this British painter” and was accompanied by a portray.

De Guzman answered, “Who is Constant?” Jennings responded, “Say again,” prompting de Guzman to right himself: “Sorry, who is Constable?”

RELATED: ‘Jeopardy!’ Contestant Displays On The Two Errors She Thinks Price Her The Sport

It’s unconventional for a number to offer a contestant a second likelihood at a solution. It’s particularly alarming contemplating Jennings seemingly didn’t afford one other contestant the identical privilege. Later within the present, competitor Harriet Wagner had an identical slip-up whereas recalling the identify of a fantasy novel creator for $2,000.

“Who is Angela LeGuin—ah—Ursula LeGuin?” Wagner responded. Jennings didn’t settle for her correction: “Yes, Harriet, you remembered that her name was Ursula, but I had already begun ruling against you when you began correcting yourself.”

Based on the Jeopardy! web site, “Contestants may change their responses as long as neither the host nor the judges have made a ruling.” The technical distinction between the 2 appears to be that whereas Wagner corrected herself, her preliminary incorrect reply was clearly heard. De Guzman, alternatively, didn’t converse clearly sufficient when stating his preliminary incorrect reply, and thus Jennings was required to ask for a clearer response.

De Guzman Strikes On To The Subsequent Spherical

Nonetheless, the ruling remains to be a bit murky. Whereas Ken Jennings had begun to rule in opposition to Harriet Wagner earlier than she completed, she was already within the technique of correcting herself when he interjected. Many followers consider he ought to have given her the chance to complete. Some are even decrying sexism on Jennings’ half. Nevertheless, the choice as to which solutions counted and which didn’t falls to the present’s judges—who’ve needed to explain their controversial rulings before—slightly than the host.

It’s much more upsetting when you notice that if Wagner had merely responded “Who is LeGuin?” and omitted the creator’s first identify completely, she nonetheless would have gained the $2,000 clue. Apart from, it was not a recreation the place $2,000 was inconsequential. Wagner gave an accurate reply in Last Jeopardy that just about doubled her rating, touchdown her simply $700 behind Luigi de Guzman—the returning champion who did obtain the prize for Wagner’s fumbled query.

Since Jennings seemingly prompted de Guzman to right his personal reply the spherical earlier than, it actually appeared like an injustice to Wagner for some watchers. It’s solely salt within the wound that de Guzman progressed to the following episode. Nevertheless, de Guzman later acknowledged the controversial rulings on Twitter.

“Having watched the game again as an outsider and with cold eyes, I want to say that I probably owe @harriet4332263 two apologies … If I’d have been Ken, I’d have either cut both of us off, or hesitated both times. But that wasn’t the side of the stage I was on on the day, and it took a great deal of separation in time and space for me to watch it and see it,” de Guzman wrote.

It was an especially form sentiment on de Guzman’s half—the signal of a very gracious winner. He says he’s reached out to Wagner to make issues proper, and there aren’t any onerous emotions between the contestants. As for Jennings’ time as host, it stays to be seen if these kinds of surprising rulings will turn out to be a typical incidence or if they are going to be remembered as an unlucky remoted hiccup.

Source link