Is this a BLITZ or not?

[Huang]

I don't know about that, Sandy. "Blitzing" in its pure form seems to only be useful on bad questions. I've been involved in something like 3000 games as a player or moderator, and I can count on one hand the number of "blitzes" I've seen anyone attempt. Whether we need this rule or not is a discussion that can be totally subsumed in issues of question quality.

Maybe I'm a bit biased. I know a majority of my points at HFT came from blitzing a clue that had already been mentioned ("oh <clue>, that's what <answer> did?)

Am I the only one who thought this sounded like stalling? My understanding of blitzing is that it occurs when somebody is unsure what is being asked for, they say the possible things that the answer could be. This is not at all what you are claiming to have done. You know the clue that was mentioned could not be the answer to the question, so why are saying it? This seems like a cheap ploy to gain additional time rather than a blitz.

To clarify, my answers mostly began with "so you're describing Clue X, didn't Person A do that?"
Sometimes when I was blanking, I would repeat the last clue I heard to jog my memory. When I didn't get the correct answer out in 5 seconds, I was negged.

I am actually arguing the same thing that everyone else is... that the focus should be on knowledge, not on gamesmanship. My true main objection to blitzing is that people seem to use IT for gamesmanship.

In the example given by Lee, gamesmanship was absolutely not involved. Blitzing, I assume, was explicitly allowed at this tournament and in no way were the rules on blitzing pushed to the limit. Lee's player made a standard creator-creation blitz. So I'm still confused as to why you (initially?) agreed that Lee's player should've been punished for giving "Chronicles of Narnia, Lewis."

However, in my experience, readers/timers only pay attention to how much time it takes for you to say your first word, not how long it takes you to give the entire answer. Therefore, someone who blitzes buys extra time to think of the answer. Several people pretty much acknowledged in this thread that they intentionally used blitzes to "stall" when they couldn't think of the answer (although they didn't expressly call it stalling.)

I know I was negged at HFT after "thinking out loud" without giving the correct answer within 5 seconds. As a lot of people have said, the TD's job is to train his or her readers to do a better job of this. I think I get what you're trying to say but you seem to forget there's already "stalling" built into the game with the 5 second hesitation rules.

[Rococo A Go Go]

we had a kid ruled incorrect because a question asked for the site of a battle, and he responded with "Battle of ________." He was ruled incorrect because "the question just asks for the site, and you named the battle."

This is one of the most terrible rulings I've ever heard of. If it happened at HOME, that'd be the last you'd see of that moderator.

The league this happened in doesn't really care for good quizbowl. The tournament director (also the "league commissioner") upheld the ruling with the exact same motivation that the moderator used. We've played in it for a long time, but the things like this that just keep coming up are really stretching our patience thin.

good quizbowl is good, bad quizbowl is bad.

I agree.

[centralhs]

I thought (and still think) that "Chronicles of Narnia-C.S. Lewis" should be a wrong response to a question that mentions "Mere Christianity" and "Surprised by Joy" which are clearly not part of the Chronicles of Narnia. If a team was determined to blitz to gain more time to think (or to visualize the answer,or whatever), it would be better to say something like "That sounds like works by the author of Chronicles of Narnia... it must be C.S. Lewis"; this at least is all correct information. By saying "Chronicles of Narnia -C.S. Lewis", it indicates (or should)that you think that all of the works previously mentioned in the question are parts of the Chronicles of Narnia; this is incorrect information.

As I said before, I haven't seen much blitzing, not even at the few college tournaments that I have attended. With good questions, at least, I don't really see why blitzing is particularly needed (other than as a form of gamesmanship.) It is much better, in my opinion, to actually figure out what the answer is and just give it. Why give a lengthy sentence containing lots of pieces of information when you could just give a one or two word answer?

As for why I think Lee's example involved gamesmanship... it actually never occurred to me until I saw this thread that people might use blitzing as a form of gamesmanship, but it is obvious that people do since giving parts of a "blitzed answer" that you know are not the correct answer before you give it appears to be an accepted practice. It's not like you wonder if "Chronicles of Narnia" might be the correct answer to the question, so you're giving it just in case it is. You flat out 100% know that "Chronicles of Narnia" is not going to be the right answer because you know that "Mere Christianity" and "Surprised by Joy" are not parts of it. What reason would you have for giving "Chronicles of Narnia" as part of your answer other than to stall/buy time?

Cathy Hirsch
Coach
Central Gwinnett H.S.

[dtaylor4]

What reason would you have for giving "Chronicles of Narnia" as part of your answer other than to stall/buy time?

This question has been answered by several people in this thread: to jog one's memory within the five-second time limit. If you think that this should be considered gamesmanship, why even offer five seconds? Maybe we should require people to answer immediately after buzzing in.

[Rococo A Go Go]

Maybe we should require people to answer immediately after buzzing in.

This is the rule in Kentucky and it's absolutely terrible. Even a split second pause is hesitation, and half the time the person goes ahead and says it as the moderator is calling hesitation.

[centralhs]

People keep giving this memory jogging reason but it doesn't make much sense to me. Why do you need to "jog your memory" by giving information that you know is incorrect? If quiz bowl is supposed to reward knowledge (and not gamesmanship) then why would we reward someone for intentionally giving wrong information? This seems antithetical to good quiz bowl. If "memory jogging" by saying things out loud is really needed (and I'm not convinced that it is), wouldn't it be better to jog it with correct information?

Cathy Hirsch
Coach
Central Gwinnett H.S.

[dtaylor4]

People keep giving this memory jogging reason but it doesn't make much sense to me. Why do you need to "jog your memory" by giving information that you know is incorrect? If quiz bowl is supposed to reward knowledge (and not gamesmanship) then why would we reward someone for intentionally giving wrong information? This seems antithetical to good quiz bowl. If "memory jogging" by saying things out loud is really needed (and I'm not convinced that it is), wouldn't it be better to jog it with correct information?

Cathy Hirsch
Coach
Central Gwinnett H.S.

But those of us who do it use correct information. Going back to the example, are you arguing that if I buzz on Aslan, and say "Aslan is from Chronicles of Narnia by...CS Lewis," this is incorrect information? If the player knew information concerning, wouldn't he/she have probably buzzed on them?

[The King's Flight to the Scots]

People keep giving this memory jogging reason but it doesn't make much sense to me. Why do you need to "jog your memory" by giving information that you know is incorrect? If quiz bowl is supposed to reward knowledge (and not gamesmanship) then why would we reward someone for intentionally giving wrong information? This seems antithetical to good quiz bowl. If "memory jogging" by saying things out loud is really needed (and I'm not convinced that it is), wouldn't it be better to jog it with correct information?

Cathy Hirsch
Coach
Central Gwinnett H.S.

But those of us who do it use correct information. Going back to the example, are you arguing that if I buzz on Aslan, and say "Aslan is from Chronicles of Narnia by...CS Lewis," this is incorrect information? If the player knew information concerning, wouldn't he/she have probably buzzed on them?

On the memory jogging thing: for me at least, it isn't necessary on every question. However, when I find that I can't quite pull something, so I say some things related to the answer out loud, and the answer comes to me. I'm not sure why there's a problem with allowing any tactic by which a player can independently come up with the answer within the allotted time.

[Papa's in the House]

Maybe we should require people to answer immediately after buzzing in.

This is the rule in Kentucky and it's absolutely terrible. Even a split second pause is hesitation, and half the time the person goes ahead and says it as the moderator is calling hesitation.

This just makes no sense, as it would force players to change their playing styles. I've noticed players that reflex buzz on a clue and then sit there for the full five seconds because they cannot recall what that clue relates to or because they have to determine what the question is really searching for with the clue (usually this occurs in question where the clue can apply to multiple different people).

People keep giving this memory jogging reason but it doesn't make much sense to me. Why do you need to "jog your memory" by giving information that you know is incorrect? If quiz bowl is supposed to reward knowledge (and not gamesmanship) then why would we reward someone for intentionally giving wrong information? This seems antithetical to good quiz bowl. If "memory jogging" by saying things out loud is really needed (and I'm not convinced that it is), wouldn't it be better to jog it with correct information?

Cathy Hirsch
Coach
Central Gwinnett H.S.

But those of us who do it use correct information. Going back to the example, are you arguing that if I buzz on Aslan, and say "Aslan is from Chronicles of Narnia by...CS Lewis," this is incorrect information? If the player knew information concerning, wouldn't he/she have probably buzzed on them?

As to whether or not Chronicles of Narnia is incorrect information in the particular tossup, it is not since at least some portion of the tossup was referring to the aforementioned book. Yes, that specific book does not apply to every clue in the tossup, and if given by itself would be wrong, but it is not "incorrect." As such, we should note that if the most important thing is answering in time, then this player used the fewest words possible to jog their memory and state the correct answer, thereby reducing the amount of time the round takes. A blitz of "Aslan is from the Chronicles of Narnia which is by C.S. Lewis" takes more time than just the work and the author. I'm going to say this now, but it seems like no one will change this particular coaches opinion. I, for one, don't think that is a good thing, but unfortunately I do not see a point in the short term where this coach will change her views. Further debate would continue to waste time, much like the protest on this blitz did during the tournament at which it occurred.

[cvdwightw]

Can someone tell me where along this chain of propositions people disagree?

Proposition 1: Buzzing in and saying "C.S. Lewis" is acceptable

Proposition 2: Thinking, "This clue is describing the Chronicles of Narnia, which is by...", then buzzing and saying "C.S. Lewis," is equivalent to buzzing in and saying "C.S. Lewis"

Proposition 3: Buzzing in, thinking "This clue is describing the Chronicles of Narnia, which is by...", then saying "C.S. Lewis," is equivalent to thinking, "This clue is describing the Chronicles of Narnia, which is by..." then buzzing and saying "C.S. Lewis," as long as the pause is not more than a few seconds and is not done with the intent of delaying the game.

Proposition 4: Buzzing in, then saying "This clue is describing the Chronicles of Narnia, which is by...C.S. Lewis" is equivalent to buzzing in, thinking "This clue is describing the Chronicles of Narnia, which is by..." then saying "C.S. Lewis," as long as the pause is not more than a few seconds and is not done with the intent of delaying the game.

Proposition 5: Buzzing in, then saying "This clue is describing the Chronicles of Narnia, which is by C.S. Lewis" is equivalent to buzzing in, then saying "This clue is describing the Chronicles of Narnia, which is by...C.S. Lewis."

Proposition 6: Buzzing in, then saying "Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis" is equivalent to buzzing in, then saying "This clue is describing the Chronicles of Narnia, which is by C.S. Lewis"

Proposition 7: Buzzing in, then saying "Chronicles of Narnia, C.S. Lewis" is equivalent to buzzing in, then saying "Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis"

My guess is that either proposition 3 or proposition 4 is the one being challenged. As to proposition 3, I find it very hard to support this. The reason for this is simply that by the time a player has finally recalled the answer (and boy, at the end of many rounds of quizbowl it does become hard to recall answers), it is possible (perhaps even likely) that another clue will have been read. In this case, should we reward the player who "knows" more (as judged by the difficulty of the clue) or the player who "knows" slightly less but can recall that slightly-easier clue faster? As to Proposition 4, it seems like most of the pro-blitz people are arguing that there should not be any difference between thinking something and saying something, so long as (1) the player is not conferring and (2) the player begins his actual answer within the allotted time. I find it very hard to argue against this point.

[Huang]

I thought (and still think) that "Chronicles of Narnia-C.S. Lewis" should be a wrong response to a question that mentions "Mere Christianity" and "Surprised by Joy" which are clearly not part of the Chronicles of Narnia. If a team was determined to blitz to gain more time to think (or to visualize the answer,or whatever), it would be better to say something like "That sounds like works by the author of Chronicles of Narnia... it must be C.S. Lewis"; this at least is all correct information. By saying "Chronicles of Narnia -C.S. Lewis", it indicates (or should)that you think that all of the works previously mentioned in the question are parts of the Chronicles of Narnia; this is incorrect information.

No it does not. And it's hilarious you believe this because it just exemplifies my previous points on most Southern coaches: they love nonsensical rules rooted in screwing over players who know stuff but can't recall it in a split-second.

As I said before, I haven't seen much blitzing, not even at the few college tournaments that I have attended.

As I said before, I have seen blitzing in terms of players "thinking out loud." I'm not sure exactly why I keep reading statements similar to this as if to argue "Hey I've never seen it, therefore it shouldn't be allowed."

Why give a lengthy sentence containing lots of pieces of information when you could just give a one or two word answer?

Because not everyone is a robot capable of recalling information in a time frame of 1 second. And often times some players must match descriptions of a clue that hasn't been mentioned with that particular clue and then with the appropriate correlating answer. If you don't consider the 5 second hesitation rule to be detrimental, I don't see how you can see blitzing as detrimental

It's not like you wonder if "Chronicles of Narnia" might be the correct answer to the question, so you're giving it just in case it is.

No, that's hilariously false. We're using it to "think out loud." We're not using it in anyway as the correct answer. This has been gone over infinite times in this thread.

Why do you need to "jog your memory" by giving information that you know is incorrect? If quiz bowl is supposed to reward knowledge (and not gamesmanship) then why would we reward someone for intentionally giving wrong information?

No one is being rewarded for "incorrect information." I don't get 10 points on a Lewis TU simply because I give Chronicles of Narnia as part of my answer. I get 10 points because I figured out the answer was Lewis through a logical thought process.

This seems antithetical to good quiz bowl.

No it's not unless you consider logic to be absent from the game of quizbowl

wouldn't it be better to jog it with correct information?

Right, because Lewis never wrote the Chronicles of Narnia. Whatever. I'm not surprised at all by your response because a lot of quizbowl players and coaches in our region believe the same thing you do. I guess this is why I like tournaments outside the Southeast region because at other tournaments I'm not constantly getting screwed over by almost fascist-like quizbowl rules.

[Matt Weiner]

Can we all calm down about the frigging Chronicles of Narnia, please?

[Cheynem]

Let's use a more entertaining hypothetical example, like What Maisie Knew/Henry James.

[AlphaQuizBowler]

I guess this is why I like tournaments outside the Southeast region because at other tournaments I'm not constantly getting screwed over by almost fascist-like quizbowl rules.

While you're not the only one who gets upset about certain rules in the Southeast, I think your anger is misdirected here. Having to respond immediately and having to wait to be recognized are on a much different level than what kind of blitzes are allowed. For people who like to talk out loud: why does this require that blitzing be allowed? Couldn't you just as easily have a rule that the moderator take the answer directed at him/her? Then you can talk as much as you want as long as you state your actual answer within 5 seconds.

[Important Bird Area]

Couldn't you just as easily have a rule that the moderator take the answer directed at him/her?

No, because this would generate equally endless wrangling over the (often unprotestable!) decision of what answers are actually directed at the moderator. At least with bonuses it's (usually) straightforward to tell the difference between a player talking to the moderator and a player conferring with the rest of the team.

[Captain Sinico]

I thought (and still think) that "Chronicles of Narnia-C.S. Lewis" should be a wrong response to a question that mentions "Mere Christianity" and "Surprised by Joy" which are clearly not part of the Chronicles of Narnia.

"The author of this series of novels also wrote Mere Christianity and Surprised by Joy..."
ANSWER: The Chronicles of Narnia

If a team was determined to blitz to gain more time to think (or to visualize the answer,or whatever), it would be better to say something like "That sounds like works by the author of Chronicles of Narnia... it must be C.S. Lewis"; this at least is all correct information. By saying "Chronicles of Narnia -C.S. Lewis", it indicates (or should)that you think that all of the works previously mentioned in the question are parts of the Chronicles of Narnia; this is incorrect information.

What I am (and seemingly everyone else is also) saying is that such an answer indicates no such thing. Even the most critical interpretation of that answer can indicate nothing beyond its ambiguity. On what basis are you claiming it necessarily indicates what you say it does?

As I said before, I haven't seen much blitzing, not even at the few college tournaments that I have attended. With good questions, at least, I don't really see why blitzing is particularly needed (other than as a form of gamesmanship.) It is much better, in my opinion, to actually figure out what the answer is and just give it. Why give a lengthy sentence containing lots of pieces of information when you could just give a one or two word answer?

To reiterate: it's easy to lose what a question is asking about (see above: the case of a question which you insisted couldn't exist.) It's even easier to only know one or two clues. Further, it happens with unit certainty on every question that one doesn't know for sure what the answer is even if one does think one has it figured out, so one can't in general "just give it." Consequently, allowing blitzing is a good idea to increase the likelihood that someone who knows what's going on in a question gets it. I hope I don't have to say this a third time without your at least replying to it.
Also, in the interest of saying at least something new, I don't understand your incessant bandying about of the term "gamesmanship" as some kind of sine que non of what we need rules not to allow. If a valid blitz is within the rules, who cares whether it's "gamesmanship" (as defined by you?) Would buzzing, sitting there for the time allotted to answer, then attempting to give the precise written answer at the very end of time likewise be "gamesmanship?" Since it clearly would, what rules can you think of that don't allow "gamesmanship?"
To expand on that point: the potential for "gamesmanship" however defined exists in all rules. I've found without exception that rules that don't allow blitzing are much more open to "gamesmanship" than those that do*. I've further found without exception that rules designed to force players to answer immediately with the precise answer on the page are far and away the most gamed rules of all, c.f. the play of every CBI match.

MaS

*For example, they cause teams to lose on frivolous protests or technicalities when a broad consensus of reasonable people would have concluded that they knew and gave the right answer to the question, i.e. what happened here happens all the time in such rules.

[Captain Sinico]

Dwight: I actually disagree with your chain of reasoning at point six. Those statements are not precisely equivalent, but we're compelled to consider them so in granting players the benefit of the doubt, the doubt here regarding the answer to the question "Did the player mean 'This clue is about The Chronicles of Narnia' or 'The whole tossup is about The Chronicles of Narnia?'

MaS

[centralhs]

"The author of this series of novels also wrote Mere Christianity and Surprised by Joy..."
ANSWER: The Chronicles of Narnia

This was not the original question that Lee Henry used in starting this thread. It has been rearranged in such a way that its meaning has been changed. However, I am not going to address the issue of blitzing any further. I've seen plenty of really good teams play over the years (such as 10+ years of Dorman teams) and get tough answers without blitzing, but if you want to blitz... go ahead.

As for gamesmanship, I am not the one who started bandying the term around in this thread. I saw many people claim to hate gamesmanship and to want the focus to be exclusively on knowledge, but then turn around and essentially admit to using blitzing as a (albeit slight)form of gamesmanship.

Cathy Hirsch
Coach
Central Gwinnett H.S.

[Captain Sinico]

I didn't say the question was the original question. I made that question up to demonstrate the error of your claim that no question that mentions works from outside the Narnia books could possibly be on them. The question I posited there makes the point that there's no simple, hard and fast rule about what the question is going to be on, given some of its clues. For that and huge variety of reasons, it's easy to get confused about what questions are on; indeed, that's exactly what someone applying your hard and fast rule probably would have done - good thing they can blitz!
In case you want to address what I'm saying, I'll re-state it in response to what you just said. I don't see you telling me why you think blitzing is "gamesmanship," beyond your two claims: first, that you don't see what good it does in spite of a large number of playing saying they prefer to answer that way and second, that saying extra things can sometimes* bamboozle untrained moderators into giving more response time. In response to the first claim, I say: I don't see what harm it does and your saying you don't see what good it does is not a case that it does harm. In response to the second claim, I say: while some moderators sometimes give undue extra time in the face of superfluous or semi-superfluous talking, the solution to that is and must be to train moderators better, since untrained or poorly trained moderators will just as likely fail to properly enforce any other rules, e.g. rules against blitzing.
Contra you, I contend that blitzing is not "gamesmanship" in as much as blitzing has important uses that can't reasonably be called "gamesmanship" - namely, it provides a hedge against the frequent case in which a player isn't exactly sure what a question is going for, but knows enough to have a precise set of related answers. For example, if you believe what you said earlier, you'd be in exactly that situation on the question I just made up - surely that's not fair. Thus, allowing blitzes increases the role of knowledge relative to not doing so and concomitantly decreases the role of other factors like "gamesmanship" in the form of casuistry about answers. I don't think there are any rules that can make a game about pure knowledge, but I do think that some rules do this better than others.

MaS

*Other times, making a valid blitz can screw your team, e.g. in this very case.

[quizbowllee]

For what it's worth - the ACTUAL tossup in question had nothing to do with Narnia or CS Lewis....

I really just wanted to see what consensus was on this issue, seeing as I was basically told that I didn't know what I was talking about (despite 16+ years playing and coaching quiz bowl).

After all of this debate, it appears that the consensus is that there is no consensus.

[Papa's in the House]

For what it's worth - the ACTUAL tossup in question had nothing to do with Narnia or CS Lewis....

I really just wanted to see what consensus was on this issue, seeing as I was basically told that I didn't know what I was talking about (despite 16+ years playing and coaching quiz bowl).

After all of this debate, it appears that the consensus is that there is no consensus.

I wouldn't say that, I'd restrict it to there being no consensus between coaches and players (as it seems that a majority of players on this thread agree that blitzing is valid in this case, but a particular coach doesn't necessarily agree).

EDIT: Thanks to the next coach post below me that corrected me on the above point.

[grapesmoker]

I've done the thing where I buzz in and say, "you're talking about book X which is by... [thinking] author Y" plenty of times. It helps to jog memory and there's no point for penalizing someone for engaging in the essential equivalent. We don't need any complicated chains of reasoning to get this, we just need to give players a reasonable benefit of the doubt.

[Down and out in Quintana Roo]

For what it's worth - the ACTUAL tossup in question had nothing to do with Narnia or CS Lewis....

I really just wanted to see what consensus was on this issue, seeing as I was basically told that I didn't know what I was talking about (despite 16+ years playing and coaching quiz bowl).

After all of this debate, it appears that the consensus is that there is no consensus.

I wouldn't say that, I'd restrict it to there being no consensus between coaches and players (as it seems that a majority of players on this thread agree that blitzing is valid, but a majority of the coaches don't necessarily agree, though this may be because a large amount of posts for coaches have been by one particular coach).

I am a coach that in no way agrees with anything that this other coach has said!! And i've made several posts indicating that.

[David Riley]

I'm with Andrew, coaches do not vote as a bloc !

[nobthehobbit]

I wouldn't say that, I'd restrict it to there being no consensus between coaches and players (as it seems that a majority of players on this thread agree that blitzing is valid, but a majority of the coaches don't necessarily agree, though this may be because a large amount of posts for coaches have been by one particular coach).

More accurately (as has been pointed out), we have that most players agree that blitzing is valid, quite a few coaches who have made only a few posts in this thread agree that it's valid, and one coach who has made many posts in this thread to argue that it isn't.

(Full disclosure: I've blitzed once that I can remember, and that was at ACF Regionals 2004 with "Holst's The Planets" off a clue about a work that had an eighth part added to it in 2000 or whenever it was.)

[centralhs]

I'm not sure that it is necessary for everyone to "jump on the bandwagon" and say that they don't agree with me. If they don't, fine. But for the record, I don't think I ever said that blitzing wasn't "valid", I just said that I didn't see how it was necessary. I have seen many, many good teams perform quite well without blitzing. For instance, at the NAQT High School Nationals (with timed rounds), I didn't see anyone blitz because, presumably, the blitzing would take too long; even without blitzing, teams from all over the country seemed to be able to perform just fine.

Cathy Hirsch
Coach
Central Gwinnett H.S.

[cvdwightw]

For instance, at the NAQT High School Nationals (with timed rounds), I didn't see anyone blitz because, presumably, the blitzing would take too long; even without blitzing, teams from all over the country seemed to be able to perform just fine.

The official NAQT Rules allow creator-creation blitzes, director-movie blitzes, and city-state-country blitzes; it's unclear whether the creator-creation rule applies when the answer is the creator and the player blitzes off a description of a particular creation (as is what happened in the hypothetical case here), but I'd assume that a good percentage of HSNCT moderators would err on the side of "it does" (incidentally, I should remember to ask this question for the HSNCT moderator meeting unless one of the NAQT folks gets on here and answers it first). The NAQT rules state to ignore anything else after the first directed answer (unless clarifying the original answer) and that is what I have done many times when moderating NAQT-format tournaments.

[Sir Thopas]

For instance, at the NAQT High School Nationals (with timed rounds), I didn't see anyone blitz because, presumably, the blitzing would take too long; even without blitzing, teams from all over the country seemed to be able to perform just fine.

Well, that brings up another issue, which is that the 2 seconds you have after buzzing forces many people to buzz differently from ACF, where you get 5 seconds. So yes, your point is valid, but that has other ramifications in the way people buzz and is more or less moot for blitzing on a 5-second buzz, which gives MUCH more leeway for remembering and piecing clues together.

[Important Bird Area]

I should remember to ask this question for the HSNCT moderator meeting unless one of the NAQT folks gets on here and answers it first).

I can do that!

The relevant rule is I.7.1.:

For created works, the player may give the name of the work and its creator in either order. For example, Shakespeare's The Tempest, The Tempest by William Shakespeare, and The Tempest, Shakespeare would all be acceptable.

which is explicit that we only allow this when the answerline is the work. That seems a little odd; let me ask R. if that is in fact the intent.