Charlie Siebert always seemed like the kind of guy you just wanted to hang around with, chat with and hear stories from. Sharp player at games and delightful personality.
@@tomshea8382 you’re absolutely right about that. The amazing players knew what to do. Our man Charlie made it look easy. Billy Crystal, Lauri Hendler, Vicki Lawrence, they cracked the code. Then there were others..
@@tomshea8382 LOL I just noticed when they come back from commercial at 2:05 Dick Clark says “it’s funny when you change the pattern of things…” - i know it was coincidental but dang that would be the perfect word to get in her subconscious and play to Charlie’s brilliant clue. The whole thing worked out well for her.
When they come back from the commercial, Dick Clark says..."WHEN YOU CHANGE THE PATTERN OF THINGS..." that ends up being to new top subject...THINGS THAT HAVE A PATTERN. Am I the only one that noticed this oddity?
I have a profound respect and admiration for the Dick Clark Pyramid series now more than ever. The judge and staff are more than willing to review any Winners Circle subject that could otherwise be a grey area or as Dick succinctly calls it, "a trap." Dick should also be praised for his due diligence duty to ensure that the Winners Circle round is fair played and free of foul play. So much of the subject matter can be ambiguous and sketchy that the judge can be taken aback by the giving party's choice of words like with Barry Gordon's "Canadian policemen" clue for "Things That Are Mounted" or Marcia Wallace's "bat" for "Things That Get Hit," both decisions that were initially buzzed but reversed upon further review. Sometimes, not all reviews have good endings, such as this one episode where they had to disqualify the player from a clue and Dick explained why the decision was made. It's in the same episode that features one celebrity's infamous blooper of "genital organs" for "Things Below The Waist". I would love to see more Pyramid Winner Circle review videos like this. There's a user here on TH-cam by the name pressmin who has "You Make The Call" segments that show game play and the ruling. Dick Clark's Pyramid was more relaxed with the letter of the law as opposed to the Donnymid series. Keep up the great work, Chad. Love watching these videos; hope you can get some Drew Carey-era Price Is Right segments on your channel, maybe some Wayne Brady Let's Make A Deal, too (I'm a fan of Whose Line Is It Anyway).
Alfredo says: "Sometimes, not all reviews have good endings, such as this one episode where they had to disqualify the player from a clue and Dick explained why the decision was made." What happened in that case?
I don't remember. It was once on pressmin's video account, but it was mysteriously removed. It's on the same winners circle playing where one contestant, in a fit of desperation, used "Your genital organs" for the subject "Things Below The Waist." The more clues she gave, the perverted the answers got (Seriously, "Things you stroke"). When the buzzer hit, the guys working the trillions were in a fit of laughter that one of the subjects was accidentally spun to the money value, and Dick Clark had to restore order. After the commercial break, Dick told the contestant that they had to take the money away because the giver gave a synonym to the word in the subject, and they were unable to DQ at the time because of the blooper. Regardless, she never reached the top - at least two clues were passed or not answered. That's all I know.
Agreed. I always got the feeling that Dick Clark advocated for “the right thing to do” regardless or whether for not the show would benefit or lose. He was not only fair to the contestant, but if (and when) a ruling went against the contestant, he made the reasoning and explanation understandable to the degree that it didn’t have a “because it’s my show” attitude.
Siebert wasn't wrong at all. In fact he gave the perfect clue. The judge was wrong. Thank goodness they made it right...and Siebert was brilliant once again.
Absolutely the right call, easy one for sure. The category should have been "Things You Pay Interest On", but was lazily written. Glad they gave her the chance for one more for the win.
Actuality, there's nothing wrong with ending a sentence with a preposition. That's a common misconception. According to grammar.dictionary.com, "At one time, schoolchildren were taught that a sentence should never end with a preposition. However, this is a rule from Latin grammar that was applied to English. While many aspects of Latin have made their way into the English language, this particular grammar rule is not suited for modern English usage." (grammar.yourdictionary.com/parts-of-speech/prepositions/ending-a-sentence-with-a-preposition.html) Grammarly.com says "You’ve been lied to. Here’s why you absolutely CAN end a sentence with a preposition. Grammar snobs love to tell anyone who will listen: _You should NEVER end a sentence with a preposition!_ Luckily for those poor, persecuted prepositions, that just isn’t true." (www.grammarly.com/blog/youve-been-lied-to-heres-why-you-absolutely-can-end-a-sentence-with-a-preposition/)
Look who's here, Michael. :-) I always thought they gave Charlie a bone here -- that category has been on Pyramid a bajillion times, and he knows VERY WELL you can't go saying 'What you do to a loan'. It's a SUBJECT. The SUBJECT IS: "YOU PAY INTEREST ON IT". What FITS that subject? A loan, a credit line, etc. He just blew it and the contestant can thank the judges for giving her another chance. There have been many other "You ________ It" categories as well.
But in fairness, they are supposed to be *categories.* A category is a list of things. "You do this to it" is not really a proper name of a category. It's just a sentence. And since the judges on _Pyramid_ as such goddamned sticklers -- more than any other game show I've ever seen -- then they bloody well ought to get it right themselves.
I watched this clip right after one where Charlie was also giving and 2 of the categories on that one were also in this one (Orchard and Chrome)! That one was 3 years before this one.
One thing I always appreciated about the way Charlie Siebert played the game, he always seemed really calm, I don't recall him ever showing frustration or panicking even with the clock running out. I think that really helped his contestants feel at ease despite high pressure.
Good call, because with the $200 category "what you do with a ladder" and how that was written allowed him to give a descriptive answer, so the same would certainly be true for the $300 category, I'd think.
I think the difference and the reason it was buzzed is that you’re not allowed to use prepositions in the list items (you pay interest ON it), which the judges immediately recognized and buzzed. Glad they allowed the redo though, as this was definitely badly worded. I will edit this this to say that the word “on” is also given in the clues to the ladder question. This show is pretty explicit about not allowing prepositions in the winner’s circle lists, but they accepted it on that one. This shows that those categories were both poorly worded “traps.”
The right call was made here to give the contestant a chance to win $10,000! The top box was labeled wrong and it threw Charlie Siebert off! It should have read "Things You Pay Interest On"!
I think later on, the producers said in advance there could be categories like "You ________." I remember an episode (I believe with Don Galloway) where the subject was "You put it in your pocket" and he said "What you do with your spare change" and got buzzed and no make-up category.
That was my thought on that and know what your referring to. Don Galloway was giving the clues to Marilyn Evans who later won $100,000. In that winner circle she won $1,000 as that was a $50 box. If she won that $10,000 Marilyn would have been thee all time money winner on pyramid
I think there was one of these with Jo Ann Worley where they redid the last box in the latter half of the show, but there was only like 4 seconds left and the contestant didn't get the big money.
Not really, as a preposition as the final word make it awkward. I posted a few minutes ago. “Things which interest is paid” may be the only feasible phrase.
Nice how they did a "make good"...Whew should have done make goods more...like if Tom rarely tongue tied or stumbled...i remember the contestant would have won if that stumbling time hadnt been lost...e.g. see Howard Wilson run..one of the gauntlets
This episode just aired a few days ago on GSN. I remember this contestant. But I missed the episode. Perhaps I still have the recorded show. But that top category was worded most incorrectly. No wonder Charles made a complaint about that.
The thing about situations like this, where they say "we were sort of both wrong" is that the scores matter for who comes back. I'm always curious to know what happened in the second round. I think if the other contestant won and finished with $750, they should bring them both back. Basically saying that the first one win the money, but for the game purposes, the score to beat was $750. Or better yet, make the score to beat either $750 or the win. So, if the other contestant either wins or gets $750, they both come back.
Two comments (though late): it probably should've been worded as "things with interest" or "things you pay interest on". I have seen it go the other way with the category of "What you do with a loan" and the clue given was "You pay interest (on it)". I can understand the confusion and I think it was the right call.
After this "What Not To Do" incident @ 1:16, because of a typical error in the category, Charles was given another category, and fortunately, for him describing the right way, his partner, won $10,000 @ 3:00.
ah that makes sense. I remember another time this happened (which was referred to elsewhere in the comments) they gave the team a new subject but gave them less time than what they had to work with whenthe last subject was revealed. I'm pretty sure they would have won in that case if the correct time had been given.
I’m kind of surprised the judge didn’t buzz Charles on the subject of Elvis Presley Songs. Charles said, “You ain’t nothing but a hound dog,” when the official title of the song is just Hound Dog. I’m surprised he didn’t get buzzed for being too descriptive.
I think they're a little more lenient with things like titles, esp. since a lot of people may think that's the title. The essence of the answer, and all.
It's not descriptive, and it doesn't matter that it isn't the EXACT wording of the title. It is essentially a song title, which is what the contestants are supposed to be saying. _Descriptive_ would be a clue like "tunes by the King of Rock 'n' Roll".
Factually wrong is not and was never illegal. For example, Barry Jenner misread deserts and gave desserts and was not buzzed. Contestant won after that as well.
That's easy when you have time to think about it! Same goes with the fast money round on Family Feud...when I play along I always try to do it during the clock like the contestant must do...not after the fact.
Alright this is no joke like my 50th time watching this clip and now a new question popped into my head Let's assume the "trap box" ("You pay interest on it") never existed on the 6 and it was somewhere else on the board and then the Presley songs box was the final. Would you have to say "Elvis Presley" along with "songs" to get it to count or would it count since the "essence" word would be "songs" and okay just to do that? I dunno why but I always like to rewatch these clips now to see if there was another question that I would have asked a judge for a box because for the Presley one the contestant takes great care to say Elvis Presley Songs I'm guessing they would have needed the artist but I'm not 100% on that so what would the judge rule on that if it was the top box? would songs just be okay or the full box?
Joshua Curtis Every box has a key word or phrase that needs to be said. Elvis, for sure, would need to be said on that subject. No way “songs” by itself gets credit. That’s not the key word.
Lava1964 a simplicity dress is where the simplicity BOOK has patterns in it for possible dresses that a woman might want. So you make the pattern from this simplicity book.
Dress patterns for women who likes to makes her own dresses. www.simplicity.com/simplicity-storefront-catalog/patterns/women/dresses/ The PERFECT CLUE FOR THE REPLACEMENT SUBJECT !
Dick Clark was a great host. Better than Michael S. I wonder why in the updated version, the contestant gives the clues to the celeb. I think I like the old way better.
The contestant gave the clues because the "guest stars" were abysmal and absolutely clueless; they were awful. In the Dick Clark days, they had a "stable" of bright, creative guest stars. And if I remember correctly, he said that they had practice time to hone their skill. Dick Clark had years of experience behind a mic and the cameras before he became host of the Pyramid. He "owned" the set and the game. Michael Strahan is an ex-football player with no meaningful on-camera experience.
Alright I need a clarification myself on something The box is "You Pay Interest on it" and they start with 13 seconds When they get buzzed there is 7 seconds left on the clock What I'm trying to understand is why they got the extra 6 seconds back when the "infraction" happened with 7 seconds unless it was to give them a fairer chance to complete the bonus round and win the 10K? If that's the case then that's fine but I just need someone to explain this to me where the 6 seconds get put back up
Alright that's kind of what I thought so they wanted to basically give them a fairer shot at getting it which is fine...irony is it took all of like 1 second but that's fine regardless Thank you for the explanation
@@Vansbaseball Plus, why would anyone ever even think that it would be fair to ONLY give the time left when the so-called "infraction" occurred in the first place, since it was admitted that the whole thing was a "trap"?--(which is precisely why a second chance is being given, to begin with). If it's a trap, it's a trap. (Essentially meaning, if it was bogus, then it was bogus. If it was invalid, then it was invalid. PERIOD. So, why would anyone then be taking a look at how many seconds were on the clock when the " BOGUS, INVALID TRAP INFRACTION" took place, and resetting the clock to the point where the clue-giver got buzzered? That whole idea is a complete non-starter that makes absolutely NO SENSE! No, it's a COMPLETE DO-OVER, as it SHOULD BE!--which very necessarily includes ALL the time on the clock that's supposed to be there, just as if the erroneous SNAFU never took place. The ONLY FAIR THING to do would be to give the FULL compliment of time that was on the clock when the last category was FIRST revealed (13 seconds). Anyway, my whole point here is: Why would anyone ever even think for one second that anything less than the full 13 seconds should be granted for the do-over in the first place??...........
@@anonamust8697 i would have done something even simpler and very much in-line with CBS's Standards and Practices other than giving up the $10K by default: invalidate all six subjects, give the contestant a new pyramid and 60 seconds and the opportunity to do it again. Usually on CBS game shows, if any part of the game goes wrong beyond the contestant's control ie: malfunction of any kind, questions not worded clearly etc, contestant is awarded a technical win by default. The Price Is Right is by far the usual example for CBS technical wins of every kind as they've been on the longest. Every other game show CBS ever produced since 1972 has basically used TPIRs many precedents regarding SNAFUs/FUBARs. Pyramid was in fact born on CBS as The $10,000 Pyramid. Can't get used to seeing it on ABC even though I am well-aware of the fact the $20,000, the first $25,000 with Bill Cullen the $50,000 and the current $100,000 were/are all on ABC.
There were lots of oddly worded answers in that bonus round. "What you do to a ladder" is also weird. I honestly can't remember them having answers like that at all. It would be more like "Ladder uses"
I'm sure I'm not the first to notice, two of these answers are repeats from the same bonus game, with Charlie at the helm, in 1982. th-cam.com/video/TQtNP7nQN4A/w-d-xo.htmlsi=J4NaWCZnCo9qSEmV
![[Live สด] การออกรางวัลสลากกินแบ่งรัฐบาล งวดวันที่ 16 พฤศจิกายน 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wPd7VFfWHIA/mqdefault.jpg)
Charlie Siebert always seemed like the kind of guy you just wanted to hang around with, chat with and hear stories from. Sharp player at games and delightful personality.
“A Simplicity dress”. Absolutely brilliant clue. The fact he came up with the most perfect clue the span of a second - wow. He was an amazing player.
My first thought was "TV test screen". But Charlie's clue worked brilliantly.
@@diamonddog13 ah yes that would have been an excellent clue
@@kcindc5539I thought "a quilt," but his was obviously the perfect clue. Brevity and specificity together. Hard to do.
@@tomshea8382 you’re absolutely right about that. The amazing players knew what to do. Our man Charlie made it look easy. Billy Crystal, Lauri Hendler, Vicki Lawrence, they cracked the code. Then there were others..
@@tomshea8382 LOL I just noticed when they come back from commercial at 2:05 Dick Clark says “it’s funny when you change the pattern of things…” - i know it was coincidental but dang that would be the perfect word to get in her subconscious and play to Charlie’s brilliant clue. The whole thing worked out well for her.
RIP Charles Siebert who passed away on May 1, 2022. He was 84.
Loved watching Bob Barker and Dick Clark growing up sick home from school or in summer.
And on no school days too!
When they come back from the commercial, Dick Clark says..."WHEN YOU CHANGE THE PATTERN OF THINGS..." that ends up being to new top subject...THINGS THAT HAVE A PATTERN. Am I the only one that noticed this oddity?
Yes
Yes, but…
Dick Clark was never told in advance what the subjects were. He saw them for the first time at the same time the clue giver saw them.
He never knew the subjects that would show up.
@@SonnyBubba
True, but the producers and judge and everyone else who knew what the category was must have been having kittens when he said ir.
Do you think he saw it, and subconsciously, said it?
I have a profound respect and admiration for the Dick Clark Pyramid series now more than ever. The judge and staff are more than willing to review any Winners Circle subject that could otherwise be a grey area or as Dick succinctly calls it, "a trap." Dick should also be praised for his due diligence duty to ensure that the Winners Circle round is fair played and free of foul play. So much of the subject matter can be ambiguous and sketchy that the judge can be taken aback by the giving party's choice of words like with Barry Gordon's "Canadian policemen" clue for "Things That Are Mounted" or Marcia Wallace's "bat" for "Things That Get Hit," both decisions that were initially buzzed but reversed upon further review. Sometimes, not all reviews have good endings, such as this one episode where they had to disqualify the player from a clue and Dick explained why the decision was made. It's in the same episode that features one celebrity's infamous blooper of "genital organs" for "Things Below The Waist".
I would love to see more Pyramid Winner Circle review videos like this. There's a user here on TH-cam by the name pressmin who has "You Make The Call" segments that show game play and the ruling. Dick Clark's Pyramid was more relaxed with the letter of the law as opposed to the Donnymid series.
Keep up the great work, Chad. Love watching these videos; hope you can get some Drew Carey-era Price Is Right segments on your channel, maybe some Wayne Brady Let's Make A Deal, too (I'm a fan of Whose Line Is It Anyway).
Alfredo says: "Sometimes, not all reviews have good endings, such as this one episode where they had to disqualify the player from a clue and Dick explained why the decision was made."
What happened in that case?
I don't remember. It was once on pressmin's video account, but it was mysteriously removed. It's on the same winners circle playing where one contestant, in a fit of desperation, used "Your genital organs" for the subject "Things Below The Waist." The more clues she gave, the perverted the answers got (Seriously, "Things you stroke"). When the buzzer hit, the guys working the trillions were in a fit of laughter that one of the subjects was accidentally spun to the money value, and Dick Clark had to restore order. After the commercial break, Dick told the contestant that they had to take the money away because the giver gave a synonym to the word in the subject, and they were unable to DQ at the time because of the blooper. Regardless, she never reached the top - at least two clues were passed or not answered. That's all I know.
Hahahaha! That's funny. Thanks for the follow-up. :-)
Agreed. I always got the feeling that Dick Clark advocated for “the right thing to do” regardless or whether for not the show would benefit or lose.
He was not only fair to the contestant, but if (and when) a ruling went against the contestant, he made the reasoning and explanation understandable to the degree that it didn’t have a “because it’s my show” attitude.
@@georgedroy Well sure, I mean Dick didn't want to be a dick about it! :D
I'm glad they made this one right because I absolutely understood why Siebert phrased his clue the way he did!
Siebert wasn't wrong at all. In fact he gave the perfect clue. The judge was wrong. Thank goodness they made it right...and Siebert was brilliant once again.
Absolutely the right call, easy one for sure. The category should have been "Things You Pay Interest On", but was lazily written. Glad they gave her the chance for one more for the win.
Category shouldn't be that, either. You mustn't end a sentence with a preposition. ;)
Actuality, there's nothing wrong with ending a sentence with a preposition. That's a common misconception.
According to grammar.dictionary.com, "At one time, schoolchildren were taught that a sentence should never end with a preposition. However, this is a rule from Latin grammar that was applied to English. While many aspects of Latin have made their way into the English language, this particular grammar rule is not suited for modern English usage." (grammar.yourdictionary.com/parts-of-speech/prepositions/ending-a-sentence-with-a-preposition.html)
Grammarly.com says "You’ve been lied to. Here’s why you absolutely CAN end a sentence with a preposition. Grammar snobs love to tell anyone who will listen: _You should NEVER end a sentence with a preposition!_ Luckily for those poor, persecuted prepositions, that just isn’t true." (www.grammarly.com/blog/youve-been-lied-to-heres-why-you-absolutely-can-end-a-sentence-with-a-preposition/)
Look who's here, Michael. :-) I always thought they gave Charlie a bone here -- that category has been on Pyramid a bajillion times, and he knows VERY WELL you can't go saying 'What you do to a loan'. It's a SUBJECT. The SUBJECT IS: "YOU PAY INTEREST ON IT". What FITS that subject? A loan, a credit line, etc. He just blew it and the contestant can thank the judges for giving her another chance. There have been many other "You ________ It" categories as well.
But in fairness, they are supposed to be *categories.* A category is a list of things. "You do this to it" is not really a proper name of a category. It's just a sentence. And since the judges on _Pyramid_ as such goddamned sticklers -- more than any other game show I've ever seen -- then they bloody well ought to get it right themselves.
A car loan. An overdue bill.
Thas why I liked this show. They took time to admit they were wrong.
Integrity! 😊
I watched this clip right after one where Charlie was also giving and 2 of the categories on that one were also in this one (Orchard and Chrome)! That one was 3 years before this one.
Charles Siebert was one of this show's better players. Quick, efficient, an excellent competitor
Unfortunatelywe lost Charlie Siebert this year.
One thing I always appreciated about the way Charlie Siebert played the game, he always seemed really calm, I don't recall him ever showing frustration or panicking even with the clock running out. I think that really helped his contestants feel at ease despite high pressure.
Good call, because with the $200 category "what you do with a ladder" and how that was written allowed him to give a descriptive answer, so the same would certainly be true for the $300 category, I'd think.
AGREED
I think the difference and the reason it was buzzed is that you’re not allowed to use prepositions in the list items (you pay interest ON it), which the judges immediately recognized and buzzed. Glad they allowed the redo though, as this was definitely badly worded.
I will edit this this to say that the word “on” is also given in the clues to the ladder question. This show is pretty explicit about not allowing prepositions in the winner’s circle lists, but they accepted it on that one. This shows that those categories were both poorly worded “traps.”
Dick Clark was the best host for the Pyramids games. Of all the Pyramid game show he was the best...R.I.P. Dick Clark...
I have always wondered how Regis would have done as the host.
There is a person in the back who turned the box around. That's cool.
The right call was made here to give the contestant a chance to win $10,000! The top box was labeled wrong and it threw Charlie Siebert off! It should have read "Things You Pay Interest On"!
You are so correct on that...
Guy was a great game player. Good actor on trapper John md also
The man's name was Charles Siebert and he's known for playing Dr. Stanley Riverside II on Trapper John, M.D.
Good player!
1:50 - Oy, the 1985 mullet......3:12 Markie joins in on the look.
No one wore a mullet better than Markie. It was her signature look.
I remember watching this way back in 1985...wow...the last time I saw this win.❤❤❤
I think later on, the producers said in advance there could be categories like "You ________." I remember an episode (I believe with Don Galloway) where the subject was "You put it in your pocket" and he said "What you do with your spare change" and got buzzed and no make-up category.
That was my thought on that and know what your referring to. Don Galloway was giving the clues to Marilyn Evans who later won $100,000. In that winner circle she won $1,000 as that was a $50 box. If she won that $10,000 Marilyn would have been thee all time money winner on pyramid
Yes...and he was correct on how he phrased his comment...but he got buzzed. What he said should have been accepted due to the wording of the subject.
That top one was phrased very awkwardly and non-traditionally
It was great they gave a second shot at it, but his original 'question' was too descriptive anyway for the winners circle
"When you change the pattern of things..." with the replacement subject being THINGS WITH A PATTERN. Amazing
Simplicity dress was the perfect clue
I think there was one of these with Jo Ann Worley where they redid the last box in the latter half of the show, but there was only like 4 seconds left and the contestant didn't get the big money.
That was good they gave her another chance on that.
Yea, definitely should have said "things you pay interest on" instead.
Not really, as a preposition as the final word make it awkward. I posted a few minutes ago. “Things which interest is paid” may be the only feasible phrase.
This game show was always great at correcting mistakes.
Nice how they did a "make good"...Whew should have done make goods more...like if Tom rarely tongue tied or stumbled...i remember the contestant would have won if that stumbling time hadnt been lost...e.g. see Howard Wilson run..one of the gauntlets
Oh, I LOVE that! :D
This episode just aired a few days ago on GSN. I remember this contestant. But I missed the episode. Perhaps I still have the recorded show. But that top category was worded most incorrectly. No wonder Charles made a complaint about that.
This chick's got an epic mullet!
1985 for ya!
@@m.e.d.7997 *LOVE IT*
The thing about situations like this, where they say "we were sort of both wrong" is that the scores matter for who comes back. I'm always curious to know what happened in the second round. I think if the other contestant won and finished with $750, they should bring them both back. Basically saying that the first one win the money, but for the game purposes, the score to beat was $750. Or better yet, make the score to beat either $750 or the win. So, if the other contestant either wins or gets $750, they both come back.
I like how they did that to make up for the miscue. “Price Is Right” would have just given them the prize, but this was the fairer way to do it.
This was week in which Richard won BIG on the nighttime show.
Two comments (though late): it probably should've been worded as "things with interest" or "things you pay interest on". I have seen it go the other way with the category of "What you do with a loan" and the clue given was "You pay interest (on it)". I can understand the confusion and I think it was the right call.
“Things with interest” could have gone off on a tangent that had nothing to do with finance.
A curious person
A hobbyist
Even a synonym of some sort may be an illegal clue.
Sometimes I feel like the judges are just making up rules as they go along.
I still don't see what the problem was. You can't give descriptors, only lists...
terminat1 the phrasing of the subject material was the problem
Charles wasn't wrong.
After this "What Not To Do" incident @ 1:16, because of a typical error in the category, Charles was given another category, and fortunately, for him describing the right way, his partner, won $10,000 @ 3:00.
Did anyone notice they gave her more time, when the clock stopped originally there were 7 seconds not 13 like Dick said when they tried it again.
Because they replaced the subject entirely, they gave them the amount of time that was left when the last subject turned, which was 13 seconds.
ah that makes sense. I remember another time this happened (which was referred to elsewhere in the comments) they gave the team a new subject but gave them less time than what they had to work with whenthe last subject was revealed. I'm pretty sure they would have won in that case if the correct time had been given.
Well, they won either way so honestly no one cares.
I think people do care because the whole issue at hand here is the fairness of the game.
this is a fun game to see played well
If this occurred in the second game, the credits would have taken place in the winner’s circle as well as Dick staying there.
I’m kind of surprised the judge didn’t buzz Charles on the subject of Elvis Presley Songs. Charles said, “You ain’t nothing but a hound dog,” when the official title of the song is just Hound Dog. I’m surprised he didn’t get buzzed for being too descriptive.
I think they're a little more lenient with things like titles, esp. since a lot of people may think that's the title. The essence of the answer, and all.
It's not descriptive, and it doesn't matter that it isn't the EXACT wording of the title. It is essentially a song title, which is what the contestants are supposed to be saying. _Descriptive_ would be a clue like "tunes by the King of Rock 'n' Roll".
Factually wrong is not and was never illegal. For example, Barry Jenner misread deserts and gave desserts and was not buzzed. Contestant won after that as well.
The pickers...a great clue.
Did that happen in 73 as well?
It should have read " THINGS THAT YOU PAY INTEREST ON".
You pay interest on it: Your car loan, your home mortgage, your overdue credit card bill.
That's easy when you have time to think about it! Same goes with the fast money round on Family Feud...when I play along I always try to do it during the clock like the contestant must do...not after the fact.
@@JohnSmith-zw8vpI wasn't clear. That's what the judges were expecting. In fact, I don't think he did make a mistake with "what you do to a loan".
Definitely a fair decision.
Yes, if they just went with it...CBS's Program Practices would have had a word with Mr. Stewart. Still it was the most equitable thing to do.
I would have invalidated the whole board, give six new subjects, a full 60 seconds and do it again
@@chrismc410No reason to invalidate the whole board. One subject was wrong, not the other 5.
They should have granted her the win automatically.
Female mullet. Love it.
Apparently, Mr. Clark pays cash for his cars.
what was wrong with that clue about the loans?
He wasn’t giving a list of things on which you pay interest. As Dick said, it was an awkward response to an awkwardly phrased subject.
At 1:16 If any illegal clue is given by his or her partner in the Winner’s circle You will be eliminated from this game.
How was he not buzzed on the 4th clue?
That type of subject allows for more descriptive clues.
For the same reason he shouldn't have gotten buzzed on the 6th one.
Alright this is no joke like my 50th time watching this clip and now a new question popped into my head
Let's assume the "trap box" ("You pay interest on it") never existed on the 6 and it was somewhere else on the board and then the Presley songs box was the final. Would you have to say "Elvis Presley" along with "songs" to get it to count or would it count since the "essence" word would be "songs" and okay just to do that?
I dunno why but I always like to rewatch these clips now to see if there was another question that I would have asked a judge for a box because for the Presley one the contestant takes great care to say
Elvis
Presley
Songs
I'm guessing they would have needed the artist but I'm not 100% on that so what would the judge rule on that if it was the top box? would songs just be okay or the full box?
Joshua Curtis Every box has a key word or phrase that needs to be said. Elvis, for sure, would need to be said on that subject. No way “songs” by itself gets credit. That’s not the key word.
Elvis Songs would be enough
I think what they’re asking is if the answer “Elvis Presley” would have been accepted without the word “songs.”
trey songz ft elvis
She’s a great player
I thought she was blind by the way she didn't look at him
I just noticed that Dick Clark kept touching her with his hand.......
he mentioned why he was doing it in the first few seconds of the video.
I the audience would refrain from clapping until the end not every time they win s clue
Who's the lady??
underrated song
I don't know what a simplicity dress is. Help me!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplicity_Pattern
Lava1964 a simplicity dress is where the simplicity BOOK has patterns in it for possible dresses that a woman might want. So you make the pattern from this simplicity book.
Dress patterns for women who likes to makes her own dresses.
www.simplicity.com/simplicity-storefront-catalog/patterns/women/dresses/
The PERFECT CLUE FOR THE REPLACEMENT SUBJECT !
The only other time I've seen this ruling is on the June 1973 episode that's also available online. And yeah, that category was poorly written.
Dick Clark was a great host. Better than Michael S. I wonder why in the updated version, the contestant gives the clues to the celeb. I think I like the old way better.
The contestant gave the clues because the "guest stars" were abysmal and absolutely clueless; they were awful. In the Dick Clark days, they had a "stable" of bright, creative guest stars. And if I remember correctly, he said that they had practice time to hone their skill. Dick Clark had years of experience behind a mic and the cameras before he became host of the Pyramid. He "owned" the set and the game. Michael Strahan is an ex-football player with no meaningful on-camera experience.
Well, Strahan has on camera experience, just not as a game show host.
Because today's celebrities are as dense as rocks.
Alright I need a clarification myself on something
The box is "You Pay Interest on it" and they start with 13 seconds
When they get buzzed there is 7 seconds left on the clock
What I'm trying to understand is why they got the extra 6 seconds back when the "infraction" happened with 7 seconds unless it was to give them a fairer chance to complete the bonus round and win the 10K? If that's the case then that's fine but I just need someone to explain this to me where the 6 seconds get put back up
Because they replaced the subject entirely, they gave them the amount of
time that was left when the last subject turned, which was 13 seconds.
Alright that's kind of what I thought so they wanted to basically give them a fairer shot at getting it which is fine...irony is it took all of like 1 second but that's fine regardless
Thank you for the explanation
@@Vansbaseball Plus, why would anyone ever even think that it would be fair to ONLY give the time left when the so-called "infraction" occurred in the first place, since it was admitted that the whole thing was a "trap"?--(which is precisely why a second chance is being given, to begin with).
If it's a trap, it's a trap.
(Essentially meaning, if it was bogus, then it was bogus. If it was invalid, then it was invalid. PERIOD. So, why would anyone then be taking a look at how many seconds were on the clock when the " BOGUS, INVALID TRAP INFRACTION" took place, and resetting the clock to the point where the clue-giver got buzzered? That whole idea is a complete non-starter that makes absolutely NO SENSE!
No, it's a COMPLETE DO-OVER, as it SHOULD BE!--which very necessarily includes ALL the time on the clock that's supposed to be there, just as if the erroneous SNAFU never took place. The ONLY FAIR THING to do would be to give the FULL compliment of time that was on the clock when the last category was FIRST revealed (13 seconds).
Anyway, my whole point here is: Why would anyone ever even think for one second that anything less than the full 13 seconds should be granted for the do-over in the first place??...........
@@anonamust8697 i would have done something even simpler and very much in-line with CBS's Standards and Practices other than giving up the $10K by default: invalidate all six subjects, give the contestant a new pyramid and 60 seconds and the opportunity to do it again. Usually on CBS game shows, if any part of the game goes wrong beyond the contestant's control ie: malfunction of any kind, questions not worded clearly etc, contestant is awarded a technical win by default. The Price Is Right is by far the usual example for CBS technical wins of every kind as they've been on the longest. Every other game show CBS ever produced since 1972 has basically used TPIRs many precedents regarding SNAFUs/FUBARs. Pyramid was in fact born on CBS as The $10,000 Pyramid. Can't get used to seeing it on ABC even though I am well-aware of the fact the $20,000, the first $25,000 with Bill Cullen the $50,000 and the current $100,000 were/are all on ABC.
He was right. It WAS a bum rap.
God bless Dick Clark.
There were lots of oddly worded answers in that bonus round. "What you do to a ladder" is also weird. I honestly can't remember them having answers like that at all. It would be more like "Ladder uses"
I'm sure I'm not the first to notice, two of these answers are repeats from the same bonus game, with Charlie at the helm, in 1982. th-cam.com/video/TQtNP7nQN4A/w-d-xo.htmlsi=J4NaWCZnCo9qSEmV
👍💖💕💞💗💓👍