Hempfield native edged out in rare ‘Jeopardy!’ sudden-death tiebreaker |

Hempfield native edged out in rare ‘Jeopardy!’ sudden-death tiebreaker

Jonna Miller
Sarah Norris, formerly of Hempfield, is shown above with Alex Trebek, host of the popular television game show Jeopardy!

With an audible gasp from the studio audience and most of America, Thursday night’s Jeopardy featuring Hempfield native Sarah Norris ended in a tie.

According to, all three contestants gave incorrect responses but it was Norris — a technical writer and manager from Minneapolis, Minn. — and Laura McLean — a data analyst from Nashville, Tenn., and the defending one-day Jeopardy champion — who each concluded the game with a rare tie score of $6,799. It was the very first tie game to occur since the show updated its tiebreaker rules — where no game can conclude in a non-zero tie — back in November 2014.

Without missing a beat, host Alex Trebek announced the tiebreaker category, “Way Back in 2017,” and the clue, “Her April decision to call a snap parliamentary election proved less than brilliant on June 8.”

Unfortuantely, Norris wasn’t quite quick enough to buzz in with the winning question: “Who is May?”

Norris, whose Twitter bio now reads “Yellmaster. Messy hair. MSU. Jeopardy tiebreak loser” took to the social meda platform in the hours following the show’s airing.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.