The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Kniwt on May 05, 2010, 09:14:00 AM
-
The Sacramento Bee reports today (http://\"http://www.sacbee.com/2010/05/05/2727719/california-lottery-cancels-make.html\") that "poor ratings" have led to the demise of the weekly TV show, effective July 3, and that there are no plans to bring back "The Big Spin" or any other format. There was also a production problem in 2009 that damaged the integrity of the program:
After a Feb. 8, 2009, taping, it was discovered that names on contestant forms were transposed. As a result, nine contestants played for more money they were eligible to win and nine played for less.
After Josefina Sineriz, 61, of Bakersfield won $2.8 million in a progressive jackpot, lottery officials realized other contestants should have been eligible for the big prize draw.
The lottery ultimately paid $264,000 in winnings to nine players who were allowed to participate in a future draw.
-
...Which will make the show's run about 18 months long. I'm surprised, mainly because I expected it to go down in six. I'm about 95% certain this is the longest-lasting game show Mark L. Walberg has hosted.
there are no plans to bring back "The Big Spin"
So that's it, then? They tried to replace the long-running hit with something else and it didn't work...so they're just giving up?
Granted, I've seen this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_(game_show)_broadcast_history#The_(New)_$25,000_Pyramid:_1982-1987,_1988) happen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackout_(game_show)) before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_(game_show)_broadcast_history#The_(New)_$25,000_Pyramid:_1982-1987,_1988), but it looks like that won't be the case this time.
After a Feb. 8, 2009, taping, it was discovered that names on contestant forms were transposed. As a result, nine contestants played for more money they were eligible to win and nine played for less. After Josefina Sineriz, 61, of Bakersfield won $2.8 million in a progressive jackpot, lottery officials realized other contestants should have been eligible for the big prize draw. The lottery ultimately paid $264,000 in winnings to nine players who were allowed to participate in a future draw.
...Ouch. And it happened so early on.
-
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'240381\' date=\'May 5 2010, 10:29 AM\']this is the longest-lasting show Mark L. Walberg has done.[/quote]Shop 'til You Drop, Temptation Island and Antiques Roadshow all say "yo."
-
Sorry to change the subject here, but I'd like to add my thoughts to this subject:
Speaking for myself, and only for myself, it really doesn't matter if The Big Spin replaces this show. In my not so humble opinion, the show jumped the shark when Geoff Edwards left the show. Since then, it had become more about other games, and less about spinning the wheel, which was what the show was originally all about.
Side note: Does anyone recall when exactly original host Chuck Woolery left the show and Edwards became host? Someone on YouTube said that it on the week of November 18, 1985, but other sources seem to say that it was as early as June 1986. I'm not sure which source is correct. I've also seen snippets of earlier Edwards-hosted shows on YouTube, and as it turned out, the earlier Edwards episodes were shot at the Hollywood Center Studios. The move to Sacramento must have happened as early as the beginning of 1987.
-
[quote name=\'gameshowlover87\' post=\'240388\' date=\'May 5 2010, 10:03 AM\']Side note: Does anyone recall when exactly original host Chuck Woolery left the show and Edwards became host? Someone on YouTube said that it on the week of November 18, 1985, but other sources seem to say that it was as early as June 1986.[/quote]
I don't know exactly, but I do know with absolutely certainty that Geoff was at the helm prior to 1986, as he was the host when the woman dislodged the ball from the $3,000,000 slot before it had rested for the required five seconds from her jumping up and down, and we have confirmation from multiple sources that the date of that show was 12/30/85.
-
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'240381\' date=\'May 5 2010, 07:29 AM\']First they can The Big Spin then, when poor ratings lead them to can Make Me A Millionaire, they decide not to bring back the show it replaced.[/quote]
That's correct. That's what happens when shows fail, they get canceled. Did you ever entertain the possibility that The Big Spin might have been canned originally for a reason? WAY fewer stations carried the show towards the end of its run. Many markets couldn't see it at all.
MMaM was an entire show of people either pushing buttons to generate random events or selecting random events from a board. It required non-nada-zero skill on the part of the contestants. None. (C***punch to the first person who tries to argue that guessing "higher" or "lower" requires any skill at all.) On stuff like Illinois Instant Riches and Powerball Instant Millionaire there were at least decisions on the part of the player as to whether they wanted to stop or continue. This show didn't even have that. It was flashy and a little glitzy, but there was NO substance.
-
I do know with absolutely certainty that Geoff was at the helm [...] when the woman dislodged the ball from the $3,000,000 slot before it had rested for the required five seconds from her jumping up and down, and we have confirmation from multiple sources that the date of that show was 12/30/85.
Part of me wants to see that, another part doesn't, and the third part wonders how that happened in the first place.
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'240392\' date=\'May 5 2010, 01:37 PM\']WAY fewer stations carried [The Big Spin] towards the end of its run. Many markets couldn't see it at all.
WAY fewer stations carried the show towards the end of its run. Many markets couldn't see it at all.
I...didn't know that.
MMaM was an entire show of people either pushing buttons to generate random events or selecting random events from a board. It required non-nada-zero skill on the part of the contestants. None. [...] It was flashy and a little glitzy, but there was NO substance.
Exactly. As I said in my original post, I'm surprised it ran for six months, let alone 18.
Shop 'til You Drop, Temptation Island and Antiques Roadshow all say "yo."
Should've clarified what I meant, there.
-
[quote name=\'gameshowlover87\' post=\'240388\' date=\'May 5 2010, 01:03 PM\']Speaking for myself, and only for myself, it really doesn't matter if The Big Spin replaces this show. In my not so humble opinion, the show jumped the shark when Geoff Edwards left the show. Since then, it had become more about other games, and less about spinning the wheel, which was what the show was originally all about.[/quote]
Actually, if you think about it, the true JtS moment comes down to four nominees:
1993, Edwards' last year. The rules were changed to incorporate some asinine "scratcher" game that everyone had to play, where you had to match two wheels on the board just to have a chance to spin the wheel. Indeed, a number of episodes ended up having the iconic part of the show go unused and everyone winning a flat $25K.
1994, Edwards leaves, plus the introduction of Fantasy 5. As time progressed, the game essentially got played just as, if not more often, than the wheel itself. Much lower maximum payout than the wheel ($150K) and much lower odds to win said maximum payout (essentially 26 to 1, and that's assuming the player didn't stop midway) made the game much less exciting, despite being given practically equal billing.
1996, Jack Gallagher becomes host. Far and away the worst host the show had for the entire run.
2004, the final era. Aces High replaces California Gold, all of the side games (other than Fantasy 5) are retired, and the set becomes dark and uninviting. Truly the beginning of the end.
I'd personally vote for 2004 myself, because I still found the show fairly enjoyable up to that point.
-
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'240410\' date=\'May 5 2010, 03:45 PM\']Part of me wants to see that, another part doesn't, and the third part wonders how that happened in the first place.[/quote]
See below. Woman thinks she won, starts jumping, dislodges ball, loses, gets litigious. Wins, following tons of footage entered into evidence of Edwards throwing up his hands and declaring a contestant won $X before the five seconds were up.
I...didn't know that.
Yet you had no compunctions suggesting it should be automatically brought back. Classic. In every way.
Should have clarified what I meant -- the longest-lasting game show Mark L. Walberg has hosted.
While wearing green shoes, and driving to the studio for tapings in a rented Lumina.
-
From the L.A. Times of Dec. 30, 1985, the story (http://\"http://articles.latimes.com/1985-12-30/news/mn-29798_1\") about the botched big spin.
In what lottery show host Geoff Edwards called the worst moment of his life, bad luck snatched away $3 million from Doris Burnett, a 52-year-old Los Angeles obstetrics nurse.
In the rest of the story, she's referred to, however, as "Barnett," which is the correct name if you want to get all Googly (http://\"http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22doris+barnett%22+lottery&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8\") about this.
On edit: Lo and behold, the link to (of all things) the Weekly World News (http://\"http://books.google.com/books?id=WOwDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=%22doris+barnett%22+lottery&source=bl&ots=nB-SYX94Mr&sig=LE2IdeUsIX6M4fU9ZFEBwx7ozcU&hl=en&ei=LgPiS7GiNo-8NqKfxf8C&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22doris%20barnett%22%20lottery&f=false\") in those Google results has a photo from the show in question.
-
How does the California lottery get air time in the first place? Is it barter syndication? Is it a time buy? Does the TV show pay for itself? Could someone explain to me why a TV show is needed in the first place?
-
Just read the story about Doris Barnett. Now you know why contestants sign the releases they do. When was the last time a contestant sued TPIR claiming they won the Dodge Charger and are entitled to an additional $400,000 in damages for emotional distress?
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'240419\' date=\'May 5 2010, 04:33 PM\']Could someone explain to me why a TV show is needed in the first place?[/quote]
Well, to sell more lottery tickets, right?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'240421\' date=\'May 5 2010, 04:42 PM\'][quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'240419\' date=\'May 5 2010, 04:33 PM\']Could someone explain to me why a TV show is needed in the first place?[/quote]
Well, to sell more lottery tickets, right?
[/quote]
Right
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'240421\' date=\'May 5 2010, 07:42 PM\'][quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'240419\' date=\'May 5 2010, 04:33 PM\']Could someone explain to me why a TV show is needed in the first place?[/quote]
Well, to sell more lottery tickets, right?
[/quote]
Yep, and they aren't the cheapies, either. IIRC the Hoosier Lottery's game had $5 scratchers for its game.
-
The lottery gets a lot of publicity when the jackpot gets high, and I imagine there are lots of habitual lottery players who buy tickets every week. Has there ever been established a connection between ticket sales and the existence or non-existence of a TV show? And how does the show get placed on the air?
-
The way it sounded before reading the articles, the woman's jumping shook the wheel and dislodged the ball (that it was her fault, and hers alone, that she lost $2,990,000).
Mrs. Barnett's lawyers showed jurors video tapes of other Big Spin contestants who were awarded prizes even though the ball didn't stay put for five seconds or more.
This struck me the most out of that article (I never did pay attention to the Weekly World News -- come on, "Alien Impregnates Crossdressing Hobo"?), as it shows a lot of problems in the show's early days -- not only did a contestant successfully get $3.4 Million from the California Lottery, it was proved in court that the early days didn't always enforce the five-second rule. (There was also a "three revolutions" rule, enforced by lights below the wheel.)
With this, I'm now kind of surprised the show managed to run another 23 years -- getting into court and having to pay an additional $400,000 due to a hosting error on your brand-new game show (the WWN article almost directly says that the whole thing was Geoff's fault for not enforcing the five-second rule before declaring Doris the winner of $3,000,000) is not the best method of Public Relations.
Now that I know the story (and that it had a happy ending of sorts), I'd love to see that spin. Reminds me of that Pat Finn-era lady who also thought she became a millionaire and got excited, only to have the ball dislodge...and land in another $1,000,000 space.
/hopes "Alien Impregnates Crossdressing Hobo" wasn't used by the Weekly World News
-
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'240429\' date=\'May 5 2010, 07:30 PM\']The way it sounded before reading the articles, the woman's jumping shook the wheel and dislodged the ball (that it was her fault, and hers alone, that she lost $2,990,000).[/quote]
I saw it when it happened. That's exactly what happened, and I am sure the contestants were made aware of (and signed a document agreeing to) the rules in advance. Personal responsibility FTL.
Unsurprisingly, WWN got it wrong:
[quote name=\'Weekly World News\']Mrs. Barnett's lawyers showed jurors video tapes of other Big Spin contestants who were awarded prizes even though the ball didn't stay put for five seconds or more.[/quote]
This is not the case. The five-second rule was ALWAYS enforced. It was just that the prosecution's case was that the host would jump the gun and tell the person they won Whatever before the five seconds expired and the amount was official. Just so happened this was the first time that this situation came up. (Mainly because the wheel under the short Woolery regime had actual slots for the ball to rest in and so this wasn't really an issue. When Edwards took over, they switched to a new wheel where the "slots" were basically the spaces between pegs.
(the WWN article almost directly says that the whole thing was Geoff's fault for not enforcing the five-second rule before declaring Doris the winner of $3,000,000)
This...might be true. Assuming that Geoff was ever told that he should always wait until the win was official before making the call, as opposed to trusting the dramatic timing of a 20-year veteran host. And I am willing to entertain the possibility that he wasn't told that and that the Lottery made him a scapegoat.
Now that I know the story
Well, the Weekly World News version of it, anyhow.
/makes a man miss Paul Harvey
-
(the WWN article almost directly says that the whole thing was Geoff's fault for not enforcing the five-second rule before declaring Doris the winner of $3,000,000)
This...might be true. Assuming that Geoff was ever told that he should always wait until the win was official before making the call, as opposed to trusting the dramatic timing of a 20-year veteran host. And I am willing to entertain the possibility that he wasn't told that and that the Lottery made him a scapegoat.
Based on the info in this topic, here's a timeline of what happened (please correct if needed) with everything but the last one happening in the span of at most three minutes:
-Doris Barnett spins the wheel
-Wheel makes the required three revolutions for the spin to "count"
-Wheel slows down
-Ball lands in $3,000,000 space
-Geoff Edwards immediately declares Doris the winner of $3,000,000
-Doris jumps around in excitement
-Excited jumping shakes the wheel
-Ball falls out of $3,000,000 space before the five required seconds elapse
-Ball bounces around bottom portion of wheel (as seen in the picture, nobody is yet aware of this)
-Ball lands in a $10,000 space (as family comes up?)
-Geoff looks at the wheel, realizes what happened, calms everybody down, and states that the ball fell out of the $3,000,000 and landed in the $10,000 (and, by implication, sat in the $10,000 for the required five seconds)
-(Unknown, possibly a bad reaction from Doris and/or a throw to commercial?)
-Doris sues the Lottery and wins
...So based on the info provided, it definitely looks like Geoff jumped the gun, which caused the excited jumping, which caused the wheel to shake, which caused the ball to dislodge from the $3,000,000 to the $10,000. However, as you said, whether Geoff's really at fault here depends on whether the Lottery actually told him about the five-second rule.
If they explained the rule, Geoff jumped the gun and the situation was entirely his fault. If they didn't, though, Geoff wasn't liable and the situation was entirely the Lottery's fault.
-
It was just that the prosecution's case was that the host would jump the gun and tell the person they won Whatever before the five seconds expired and the amount was official.
Plaintiff's case.
The underlying question in those instances is whether the ball jumped out of the slot before the five seconds had elapsed and if so, which amount was awarded? According to the rules (which were disregarded in this case) it should be the amount the ball sits in for five seconds.
I'm astonished at both of you. You should both know by now that the emcee is not ultimately responsible for awarding prizes, the producer is, and the emcee can and should be overruled by the producer if he is wrong (c.f. Sonny Fox). Suppose on, say, The $64,000 Challenge the question is "Who was the first president of the United States?". The contestant says "John Adams" and the emcee calls it correct. You think a competent producer is going to let this go? No, he's going to stop and correct the emcee and no money will be awarded because the question was answered incorrectly regardless of how the emcee called it.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'240437\' date=\'May 5 2010, 11:08 PM\']The underlying question in those instances is whether the ball jumped out of the slot before the five seconds had elapsed and if so, which amount was awarded?[/quote]
And the answer is "no". The plaintiff's case was that the host (and by extension, the production, see below) was negligent in telling the contestant what they had won before it was official that they had won it. This was the first time that a ball ran based on the actions of a contestant.
According to the rules (which were disregarded in this case)
I hope by "case" you mean "the lawsuit." Because the production most definitely applied the rules.
I actually was telling my girlfriend (who has a law degree) about this tonight, and she suggested that the document the contestants sign that explain what the game rules are, et. al., might not be enforceable as proof that the contestant was made aware of the five-second rule.
I'm astonished at both of you. You should both know by now that the emcee is not ultimately responsible for awarding prizes, the producer is
I can tell you at the minimum that your astoinishment at me is unfounded, as I assure you I am well aware of this, and was merely speaking to Dan88's suggestion (via Weekly World News, and it saddens me that I am surprised *not at all* at his trying to quote WWN as a legitimate source) that the "whole thing was Geoff's fault."
-
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'240435\' date=\'May 5 2010, 09:37 PM\']* If the Lottery did explain the rule, Geoff jumped the gun and the situation is entirely his fault.
* If the Lottery did not explain the rule, Geoff is not liable and the situation is entirely the Lottery's fault.[/quote]
Either way, legally, the onus is on the Lottery, since Geoff was an employee of the production. All I'm trying to do is point out the possibility (which you seem to be backpedaling into now) that Geoff wasn't knowingly negligent.
I know Geoff is still alive -- might be a good idea to ask him, although (for good reason) he might not want to remember this.
Or, alternately, we could let Geoff enjoy his retirement in peace.
-
I worked the CA. lottery show for years, although not during the Geoff Edwards era. The lottery has their own equivalent of an S&P department that determines and polices the rules.
They review the rules with the contestants who then sign that they agree to abide by those rules and the lottery's rulings. The S&P "draw inspectors" are on set before the taping to run the games repeatedly to rule out any anomoly or irregularity, such as weighting or other attempt by anyone to affect an outcome. They are then on set monitoring all aspects of play, and make all determinations.
Nothing a host says supercedes those rulings.
Randy
tvrandywest
-
I hope by "case" you mean "the lawsuit."
Which case do you THINK I mean, Chris? It is obvious that the production company tried to apply the rules but the jury disregarded them.
the document the contestants sign that explain what the game rules are, et. al., might not be enforceable as proof that the contestant was made aware of the five-second rule.
Now why on Earth wouldn't it be? You sign an agreement, you're bound by it. Simple contract law. If it's not enforceable then it would wreak havoc with all game/reality show production.
The lottery has their own equivalent of an S&P department that determines and polices the rules. They review the rules with the contestants who then sign that they agree to abide by those rules and the lottery's rulings. The S&P "draw inspectors" are on set before the taping to run the games repeatedly to rule out any anomoly or irregularity, such as weighting or other attempt by anyone to affect an outcome. They are then on set monitoring all aspects of play, and make all determinations.
I don't know if those procedures were in place at the time of this incident, and it's a moot point now, but they may as well have thrown all of that out the window and burned the rule book if the rules don't even stand up in court. That it even got to the lawsuit stage is remarkable because the contestant release should have had language against it, along with the clause "I agree that all decisions of the lottery commission are final". Instead, $3.4 million plus court costs that should have gone to educate California's children go to a greedy sore loser. May she choke on the money.
/Clementson, are you finished being a drama queen?
//Hell no!
-
Great "tug on the heartstrings" action there. (She took money from the kids!) But ultimately, this is a question of proximate versus actual cause.
Yeah, the jumping around dislodged the ball. It was the actual cause. But the jumping around would not have occurred had the emcee's declaration not been made. Therefore, the declaration is the the original reason this whole mess happened, and it may be (was) actionable. Proximate cause. If she's able to demonstrate this, she's entitled.
Let's extend to something a bit more current. You're playing The Cube in 2012, and NPH says you have to continue an action for 10 seconds. He declares you a winner at 8 seconds, so you end the action and jump for joy, and the production a) overrules him and b) takes away your last life for failing to complete the task. Is it fair? After all, the decisions of the producers are final.
And before you claim "apples to oranges", understand that the question I'm asking is in relation to proximate cause. Would the embittered lottery contestant have won if not for Geoff's declaration? Would you have won if not for NPH's declaration? Regardless of how you feel personally due to your years in television, this is a fair legal question.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'240443\' date=\'May 6 2010, 02:31 AM\']Which case do you THINK I mean, Chris? It is obvious that the production company tried to apply the rules but the jury disregarded them.[/quote]
Just making sure, and I only asked because my gut interpreted that the other way at first.
Now why on Earth wouldn't it be? You sign an agreement, you're bound by it. Simple contract law. If it's not enforceable then it would wreak havoc with all game/reality show production.
Again, I'm on your side here. But our legal system being what it is, apparently there is something called a "contract of adhesion." The idea being that if a contract is found to be one, the court will usually throw out any provisions that a person wouldn't expect to find therein. The same thing is discussed with software EULAs. She was suggesting the plaintiff might have argued that the contestant release constituted a contract of adhesion.
Instead, $3.4 million plus court costs that should have gone to educate California's children go to a greedy sore loser. May she choke on the money.
I only disagree here to the point that the prize pool and the education contribution were and are two separate piles of money, and that paying out didn't affect that 30% or whatever it was that went to schools. I absolutely agree that she should not have won.
-
[quote name=\'parliboy\' post=\'240450\' date=\'May 6 2010, 07:07 AM\']Regardless of how you feel personally due to your years in television, this is a fair legal question.[/quote]
If she didn't sign away those rights when she signed the release, yes, that would be true. (Again, though, potential for adhesion contract. Although honestly I just don't see where any provision in there would be considered unreasonable.)
Seems to me that it boiled down roughly like this:
Plaintiff: Geoff made me do it waaaaah blah blah.
Defendant: She signed a contract.
Plaintiff: Adhesion contract blah blah.
Defendant: She signed a freakin' contract.
Plaintiff: Yammer yammer proximate cause.
Defendant: Um, what part of "contract" is nobody understanding here?
And the jury, who probably had it drilled into their heads that contracts are designed to screw consumers, bought it hook, line, and sinker.
So really my hope is that those jurors have had a host of problems with their cellphones and cable and such over the years, and that they've had a hard time getting their carriers to honor the service contracts.
NPH says you have to continue an action for 10 seconds. He declares you a winner at 8 seconds, so you end the action and jump for joy, and the production a) overrules him and b) takes away your last life for failing to complete the task. Is it fair? After all, the decisions of the producers are final.
Does it suck? Yeah. Morally, should the production admit fault and award the contestant the win? Almost certainly. Would there be the likelihood of a settlement due to the bad PR the case would generate? Sure. Are they LEGALLY culpable? I really don't think so. But that's just me, IANAL, etc. The law very often does not work the way it SHOULD work, and we often have our jury system to thank for that.
-
But ultimately, this is a question of proximate versus actual cause.
Yeah, the jumping around dislodged the ball. It was the actual cause. But the jumping around would not have occurred had the emcee's declaration not been made. Therefore, the declaration is the the original reason this whole mess happened, and it may be (was) actionable. Proximate cause. If she's able to demonstrate this, she's entitled.
(emphasis added by me) A good point. Cause-and-Effect in action.
Let's extend to something a bit more current. You're playing The Cube in 2012, and NPH says you have to continue an action for 10 seconds. He declares you a winner at 8 seconds, so you end the action and jump for joy, and the production a) overrules him and b) takes away your last life for failing to complete the task. Is it fair? After all, the decisions of the producers are final.
I think this depends -- for example, did NPH slightly lose track of time and think that 10 seconds had passed when it was really 8? The decisions of the producers are final, yes, unless they blatantly go against S&P (Our Little Genius certainly seemed to be {heading in?} that way) or the contestant legit has a case ("I played Hole In One, and somebody yelled "MISS IT!" right as I made the swing to putt!").
Granted, yes, the Hole In One case probably isn't that strong, but the host does say for the studio to be quiet given what's required to win and what's on the line.
And before you claim "apples to oranges", understand that the question I'm asking is in relation to proximate cause. Would the embittered lottery contestant have won if not for Geoff's declaration? Would you have won if not for NPH's declaration? Regardless of how you feel personally due to your years in television, this is a fair legal question.
I think it's a fair legal question. I also think an important factor is just how long the ball stayed in the $3,000,000 before Geoff declared Doris a winner -- if he declared her a winner after 4.5 seconds, for example, then there's a strong chance she might have won.
As the seconds climb, the chances of winning approach 1.
-
As an aside, I started googling for lottery game show rules, and found the rules for Oklahoma (http://\"http://www.lottery.ok.gov/media/documents/Game%20Show%20Procedures%20-%20Final.pdf\"). Buried in the middle of a 50-page document is a one-sentence paragraph:
If at any time during game play the Host or Hostess misstates a fact, it shall be deemed NOT to have disadvantaged a contestant.
So it at least appears that people have learned from mistakes.
-
ultimately, this is a question of proximate versus actual cause.
Yeah, the jumping around dislodged the ball. It was the actual cause. But the jumping around would not have occurred had the emcee's declaration not been made. Therefore, the declaration is the the original reason this whole mess happened, and it may be (was) actionable. Proximate cause. If she's able to demonstrate this, she's entitled.
All very interesting, but regardless of actual vs. proximate cause there was a written rule stating that the ball must rest in the slot for five seconds. If you want to nitpick this to death we would have to view the videotape and see if the wheel was still in motion or had come to a halt when the ball jumped. If the wheel was still in motion you would have to prove to me that the jumping, and not the motion of the wheel, caused the ball to jump. If the wheel had come to a halt you're going to have an easier time convincing me it was the contestant's jumping. Chris, do you remember the video well enough to say?
There are two issues here: One is whether the sore loser should have been awarded the money on the California lottery show, and the other is whether there is any point to game/reality shows making contestants agree to written rules if a sore loser can go to court and have those rules overturned. That is a HUGE deal for producers of game/reality shows.
Now, I can turn my entire argument around by saying that the producers set a trap for themselves by not drilling into Jeff's head that under no circumstances should he make noises about winning until the five seconds have firmly elapsed. In that case I find the producers guilty of stupidity but I still find Geoff Edwards to be one of the finest emcees ever.
/Judge Clementson has ruled.
//(SFX: WHACK)
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'240475\' date=\'May 6 2010, 05:55 PM\']Chris, do you remember the video well enough to say?[/quote]
Honestly, I don't, not definitively. I feel good saying that if the wheel was in motion, it wasn't very much motion, as they were usually pretty good about estimating if the wheel was still traveling enough for the ball to roll. (But, again, this was the VERY early days of the roll-prone wheel.)
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'240475\' date=\'May 6 2010, 07:55 PM\']If the wheel was still in motion you would have to prove to me that the jumping, and not the motion of the wheel, caused the ball to jump. If the wheel had come to a halt you're going to have an easier time convincing me it was the contestant's jumping. Chris, do you remember the video well enough to say?
There are two issues here: One is whether the sore loser should have been awarded the money on the California lottery show, and the other is whether there is any point to game/reality shows making contestants agree to written rules if a sore loser can go to court and have those rules overturned. That is a HUGE deal for producers of game/reality shows.[/quote]
Whether the wheel has 100% stopped moving or not would be irrelevant to my argument, were I in her position. An employee of the lottery declared me a jackpot winner; I took actions that I would have not otherwise taken; and those actions denied me the jackpot. Therefore, the employee's action is the proximate cause of my loss, and his employer is responsible. But you are right that the jury would have to consider as part of their deliberations whether any movement of the wheel influenced the ball. In this case, the jury, having viewed the tape (probably a lot) decided that the wheel's movement was not the problem here.
And I don't think this affects all rules of all game shows. This affects situations where a contestant relies on the verbal cues of a representative of the show. Compound that with the likelihood (and this is speculation, but you know enough about contestant prepping to correct me if I'm wrong) that staffers asked contestants to be excited and jump around a lot if they won, and you have a problem. A court might find it unconscionable that any game or reality show can willfully disregard its own instructions to a contestant (which it did do here) because it wants to save a buck.
Finally, notwithstanding my Cube comparison earlier, this wasn't any game show. This was a lottery game show, which required that an entry fee be paid for the opportunity to appear on the show. There's a certain expectation of performance that enters into play once I give the lottery $1 for a ticket. The fact that $1 is way less than I would have to pay to fly into L.A. to appear on a conventional game show is irrelevant.
Now, I can turn my entire argument around by saying that the producers set a trap for themselves by not drilling into Jeff's head that under no circumstances should he make noises about winning until the five seconds have firmly elapsed. In that case I find the producers guilty of stupidity but I still find Geoff Edwards to be one of the finest emcees ever.
No disagreement there. He was caught in the middle of a situation where someone, somewhere, did something boneheaded. It just happened to be an expensive mistake. Also, Starcade FTW.
-
[quote name=\'parliboy\' post=\'240491\' date=\'May 7 2010, 08:58 AM\']This was a lottery game show, which required that an entry fee be paid for the opportunity to appear on the show.[/quote]Incorrect. You paid $1 for the lottery ticket itself. The "value" of the ticket is likely less. Additionally, you aren't forced to redeem it.
This is why, at least here in Iowa, if a ticket is declared to be void or invalid, you get $1 back, not the top prize.
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'240493\' date=\'May 7 2010, 10:09 AM\']Incorrect. You paid $1 for the lottery ticket itself. The "value" of the ticket is likely less. Additionally, you aren't forced to redeem it.[/quote]
You are speaking from a distinct lack of information, unless you have some kind of law degree you've been holding out on us.
-
parliboy - you make some interesting points, but they are largely based on misconceptions or erroneous assumptions. I won't repeat myself by addressing those points again here.
-
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'240381\' date=\'May 5 2010, 07:29 AM\'][quote name=\'Kniwt\' post=\'240377\' date=\'May 5 2010, 09:14 AM\']and that there are no plans to bring back "The Big Spin" or any other format.[/quote]
So that's it, then? First they can The Big Spin then, when poor ratings lead them to can Make Me A Millionaire, they decide not to bring back the show it replaced. Guys, you tried to replace the long-running hit with something else, and it didn't work -- I've seen this (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_(game_show)_broadcast_history#The_(New)_$25,000_Pyramid:_1982-1987,_1988\") happen (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackout_(game_show)\") before (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_(game_show)_broadcast_history#The_(New)_$25,000_Pyramid:_1982-1987,_1988\").[/quote]
There hasn't been a need for a scratch ticket based TV game since California became a MegaMillions state while keeping its own Lotto game as well.
I have a feeling the real problem isn't the format of the shows, but that nobody is playing "scratcher" tickets any more.
-- Don
-
[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'240435\' date=\'May 5 2010, 09:37 PM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'240431\' date=\'May 6 2010, 12:02 AM\']
(the WWN article almost directly says that the whole thing was Geoff's fault for not enforcing the five-second rule before declaring Doris the winner of $3,000,000)
This...might be true. Assuming that Geoff was ever told that he should always wait until the win was official before making the call, as opposed to trusting the dramatic timing of a 20-year veteran host. And I am willing to entertain the possibility that he wasn't told that and that the Lottery made him a scapegoat.[/quote]
Based on the info provided, here's a timeline of what happened (if you saw this incident, please feel free to correct any of this as necessary). And remember, all of this takes place within (at most) three minutes:
1) Doris spins the wheel
2) Wheel makes the required three revolutions for the spin to "count"
3) Wheel slows down
4) Ball lands in $3,000,000 space
5) Geoff Edwards immediately declares Doris Barnett the winner of $3,000,000
6) Doris jumps around in excitement
7) Excited jumping shakes the wheel[/quote]
Was it ever proven that the wheel was shaken by her jumping? You would think that one of the things the lottery commission would have done was to create a wheel where anything short of touching it would not cause any part of the wheel to move.
(I have seen the incident on tape, and, as I recall, it wasn't just Geoff that reacted; they started playing the music and dropping the balloons well before the five seconds were up.)
Also, I believe that one of the reasons she won the suit was, she supplied videos of other contestants being declared winners of amounts when the ball fell out before five seconds elapsed.
-- Don
-
Was it ever proven that the wheel was shaken by her jumping?
That's the first question to ask.
You would think that one of the things the lottery commission would have done was to create a wheel where anything short of touching it would not cause any part of the wheel to move.
That's easily done. Just have the contestant stand directly on the studio floor and the game be up on a platform, just like most of the TPIR games.
I believe that one of the reasons she won the suit was, she supplied videos of other contestants being declared winners of amounts when the ball fell out before five seconds elapsed.
If that's the case then they clearly shot themselves in the foot by establishing a precedent of not following their own rules. Do you remember if the amounts awarded were greater or lesser than the ones the ball fell out of?
-
[quote name=\'That Don Guy\' post=\'240510\' date=\'May 7 2010, 06:56 PM\']Also, I believe that one of the reasons she won the suit was, she supplied videos of other contestants being declared winners of amounts when the ball fell out before five seconds elapsed.[/quote]
You would be wrong.