LAST EDITED ON 12-13-03 AT 07:59 AM (EST)I hesitate to mention this because it looks bad for my favorite, Sandra.
I discovered this technicality after I searched for game rules after I questioned something regarding JP's language at the start of the jury selection process. He said something to the effect that from that point forward all of the players' actions would be considered by the jury. I question whether this means that each juror sees all of the players' actions starting from the time the juror takes a jury seat (through elimination), possibly through closed circuit video or by some other method. These moves would include things such as Jonny Rotten's interaction with his friend about the Big Lie.
I also wonder how much they allow the juror's to interact with each other.
One of Burton's post-elimination interviews (or chats) reveals that the juror's do indeed interact with each other, which would mean that they could discuss incidents that new jurors might not have seen (including the Big Lie).
I couldn't find specific rules about the progression of the game, and CBS only has basic rules at http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor7/index.shtml
When I read the rules, I immediately noticed a technicalilty upon which the producers/referees have not acted.
The rules state the following:
"Several actions will result in immediate elimination from the contest and expulsion from the Pearl Islands, as well as forfeiture of any prize. If you were one of the Survivors, you wouldn't want to do any of these things:
...
Break the law. Even though they are stranded on a remote island in Panama, the Survivors will still be held to U.S. law, as well as local law. Any breach of those laws is against the contest rules.
...
Act up. Any misconduct is against the rules, including but not limited to stealing or misappropriating food, harming other Survivors or crew members, and acts of violence."
Does anybody else see the implications?
By disposing of the fish after Rupert's elimination, technically Sandra breached the rules. Technically, this act should have eliminated Sandra from the game.
By stealing Morgan's shoes, Rupert also breached the rules. In my opinion, this act had a much larger impact on the progression of the game, to the disadvantage of the members of the Morgan tribe. As I recall, Morgan left their shoes in a public place, and one might argue this technicality in Rupert's defense.
Do the producers of the show just arbitrarily enforce the rules? What do they consider fair play? These rules are probably stated in much clearer language in the players' contracts. Does anyone see the lawsuits coming, especially if Sandra wins?
Could this technicality strip Sandra of the title at the final vote tally?
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
