Here’s today’s Final Jeopardy (in the category Landlocked Country Names) for Tuesday, July 11, 2017:
One in Europe & one in Africa, these 2 landlocked countries start with the same 2 letters & end with the same 4
(correct response beneath the contestants)
Today’s contestants:
Kelly Lasiter, an administrative assistant from Granite City, Illinois |
Scott Simpson, a foreign service officer from Reston, Virginia |
Rich Blashka, an attorney from New York, New York (1-day total: $14,500) |
—
—
What are Switzerland and Swaziland?
Other fun facts about landlocked countries: Kazakhstan and Mongolia are the largest in area, Vatican City and San Marino are the smallest landlocked countries in area. Bolivia and Paraguay are the only two in South America.
—
—
Remember, you can also now get the following products (and others!) from our new store! Here are our top sellers; all prices are in US dollars!
(contestant photo credit: jeopardy.com)
(When commenting, please note that all comments on The Jeopardy! Fan must be in compliance with the Site Comment Policy.)
—
Become a Supporter now! Make a donation to the site on Patreon!
—
Scores going into Final:
Scott $21,400
Kelly $11,400
Rich $10,200
Final results:
Rich $10,200 – $10,000 = $200 (What are Andorra and Angola?)
Kelly $11,400 + $11,400 = $22,800 (1-day total: $22,800)
Scott $21,400 – $1,401 = $19,999(What are Tanzania and Romania?)
Scores after the Jeopardy! Round:
Scott $6,200
Kelly $5,000
Rich $4,600
Opening break taken after: 15 clues
Daily Double locations:
1) ALSO IN THE SHAKESPEARE PLAY $1000 (20th pick)
Kelly 2800 +2000 (Scott 4800 Rich 2000)
—
2) FILE UNDER “OZ” $1600 (19th pick)
Rich 9000 -2000 (Scott 13000 Kelly 8200)
3) ITALIAN COMPOSERS $1200 (23rd pick)
Scott 13400 +3600 (Kelly 10200 Rich 7000)
Overall Daily Double Efficiency for this game: 76
Unplayed clues: None!
Game Stats:
Kelly $10,400 Coryat, 12 correct, 1 incorrect, 15.79% in first on buzzer
Scott $19,000 Coryat, 23 correct, 1 incorrect, 38.60% in first on buzzer
Rich $12,200 Coryat, 19 correct, 3 incorrect, 36.84% in first on buzzer
Lach Trash: $6,800 (on 6 Triple Stumpers)
Coryat lost to incorrect responses (less double-correct responses): $5,600
Rich Blashka, final stats:
42 correct
10 incorrect
1/4 on Daily Doubles (Net Earned: -$3,500)
1/2 in Final Jeopardy
40.37% in first on buzzer (44/109)
Average Coryat: $13,000
Kelly Lasiter, stats to date:
13 correct
1 incorrect
1/1 on Daily Doubles (Net Earned: $2,000)
1/1 in Final Jeopardy
15.79% in first on buzzer (9/57)
Average Coryat: $10,400
Kelly Lasiter, to win:
2 games: 33.95%
3: 11.52%
4: 3.91%
5: 1.33%
6: 0.45%
Avg. streak: 1.514 games.
With a projected 33 regular-play games to go prior to the Tournament of Champions cutoff, after 250,000 simulations, our model shows:
An average of 1.0789 5+-time champions (standard deviation 0.81858).
An average of 1.7354 4+-time champions (standard deviation 0.98612).
An early cutoff took place 4.376% of the time (or a 5-game winner will be left out).
Kelly Lasiter qualified 3.820% of the time.
Tim Kutz qualified 60.254% of the time.
Todd Giese qualified 14.338% of the time.
Since I’m originally from Austria, Switzerland came immediately to mind. Swaziland I got 5 seconds later. But I don’t think we’ll have a 3/3 today. One possible wrong answer might be Netherlands, since “land” is kind of pushing itself on you as answer when asked for 2 countries.
That’s one of those FJ where if you can stumble on one right answer right away, you can get the other in time, but if you linger too long on a particular wrong country, trying to find a match, you’re gonna be out of luck. Congrats to Kelly for getting this one.
yes, congratulations.Rich and Scott must have known they were wrong, looking at the written answers they gave. Both had only one part of the two part FJ correct, Rich with the first part (An) and Scott the second part (ania), and of their combined answer only Andorra is landlocked.
I’m reasonably sure they did know they were wrong, but it’s still better than leaving your response blank.
One thing that bothered me in this game was the fact that an incorrect answer later ruled correct changed the outcome of the game. Near the end of Double Jeopardy, Scott answered “double envelopment” on a question about military maneuvers for which the accepted answer “flanking” was given by eventual champion Kelly. It was announced prior to Final Jeopardy that Scott’s answer was acceptable and Scott was credited with $2400 extra (the $1200 he lost for the incorrect response and $1200 more for the correct response). However, if Scott’s answer was accepted immediately as it ought to have been, Kelly would never had a chance to answer “flanking” and earn $1200. Because of that, if Scott’s answer was initially accepted, the scores going into Final Jeopardy would have been $10200, $21400, $10200 and Scott would have won in runaway fashion. In other words, because of the initial error in rejecting Scott’s answer, he was vulnerable to be caught, and the outcome would have nearly certainly been different had this error not occurred. This seems like a major weakness in the rules, no?
Hi, Ross. Thanks for your comment and your incredibly respectful tone in wording this.
I 100% agree with you that this is a weakness in the rules (and would certainly not be opposed if this rule were changed in the future). Though it would certainly make things much more difficult for Alex to explain to the viewing audience (I presume this extra simplicity is one reason why the rule is the way it is now.)
That being said, the rules that were set out for this episode were followed properly.
“Welcome back. I’m happy to report that Tracy Bacon knows more about brewing beer than our judges. Turns out we should have accepted her response of wort, as well as malt, a little while ago. So we’re giving her $1,200. And because Mike’s response would not have even happened if we had accepted Tracy’s, he gets $600 back, so he has $4,800. Tracy, you still go first…”
– Alex, in the June 6 game, preceding the Double Jeopardy! round, and referencing the 21st clue of the Jeopardy! round
I think the above rules out complexity of explanation as the reason for the rule being as it is.
Highlighting the asymmetrical application of the rule also bolsters the argument that it’s a weak spot in the rule book. But “asymmetrical” is not synonymous with “incorrect.” The call was right, and I agree that an appeal based on this ruling would be swiftly rejected. It falls well short of the Mesko standard for bringing a player back on a late-in-DJ – as pointed out below, there’s a wide gulf between “unexpected second correct response” and “poorly-worded clue.”
I would also venture that TPTB were acutely aware of the possibility of this precise situation happening — and were perfectly okay with that possibility.
There are a couple of ways to try to process this seeming loophole in the rules that allowed her to win.
On the one hand, I think inviting him back onto the show would be wholly appropriate if they choose to do so.
On the other hand, remember that there were two questions asked after he was ruled incorrect on the “Flanking” clue, and he had been playing thinking he had less money than he actually ended up having. This may have had a psychological effect on how aggressive he was in answering those last questions, one of which he did get. So while we might speculate that the game had played out with the same two players answering the same two questions to end Double Jeopardy, we can’t know that for sure. Perhaps the desperation of needing points at the end would have inspired Kelly to buzz in a split second faster on clues that weren’t hard to figure out, and she might have actually won by more.
I noticed the same thing. The judges’ mistake cost Scott the game and about $20,000. If you watch closely you can see that the tape had been edited between the time Scott gave his answer and Kelly gave hers. I suspect that the judges conferred and ruled Scott’s answer incorrect. Then Kelly appeared confused after her answer was accepted. She paused and looked at the judges before Alex prompted her to make the next selection.
I understand the rules, but in this case I think Scott should at least be invited back for another appearance.
A tape edit, while it likely happened, means absolutely nothing in this instance. Tape gets edited all the time. That should not be used as evidence here.
Sorry Andy but you’re wrong. Yes, tape edits happen all the time but in this case something unusual definetely happened.
This is not a salient debate point.
I have interviewed hundreds of former contestants with #JeopardyLivePanel. A majority of them have reported that tape edits happen all the time.
Judges’ deliberations occur all the time.
This is not an unusual occurrence. There were absolutely no shenanigans with regard to this episode.
IMO, They should give Scott another chance to play or let him keep the $19.999 he accumulated for the game. I remember Jeopardy bringing back Ashley Wilson in late 2015 because she was ruled with an incorrect answer when it shouldn’t have been.
And Ashley’s and Scott’s situations were wildly different. Ashley’s contention had to do with a demonstrably faulty Final Jeopardy clue. Scott’s clearly did not.
The game was properly administered within the rules. If Scott wants to try his hand at an appeal to come back, that is his prerogative, but I would be surprised to see him on the show again.
And the suggestion of “keep $20K”? That’s not how this works. It’s never worked that way, and even suggesting it as an option cheapens your argument completely.
I’ll stand by my opinion on this but Jeopardy is gonna do what they’re gonna do.
There was a question on the July 11th Jeopardy portion of the show involving football. We still can’t figure it out! Help!!!
VIDEO GAMES $200: Glitches in this “NFL 17” had a kick returner catching the ball at his own 2, stepping back into his own end zone & scoring a TD
It was a clue about a glitch in the Madden NFL 17 video game.
The first clue under “File Under OZ” was: “Rondo Alla Turca is one of the many immortal works by this composer”. The answer was Mozart — but when that answer was given, there was a longer-than-usual pause before Alex acknowledged it, as if the judges needed to weigh in for some reason. Any idea what that was about?
My guess is that Alex for some reason zoned out for a second and it didn’t get edited out. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯