HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >

Discussion

Should Chopped chefs be disqualified for omitting an ingredient?

I mean, it's their show and they can do what they want, but if my armchair statistics are accurate, more often than not a chef that leaves out an ingredient will 1) not lose that round but will make the dessert round and 2) be Chopped because of their omission in the earlier round. I couldn't tell you who, but I think I have only seen one chef who managed to overcome such an obstacle to win the show.

If omitting an ingredient makes winning overall so unlikely, shouldn't omission be an automatic loss if their moving on takes a more possible win away from another chef?

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
    1. Yes. It should be an automatic boot in my opinion. Otherwise, why require it?

      1. yes. and then you would need a tie-breaking method if two chefs both leave out ingredient(s).

        my reasoning is that the other chefs have made compromises in their dishes in order to incorporate all the mystery ingredients. whether they lost time cleaning the gritty shellfish, or screwed up their flavours by forcing the durian to work with the leftover tuna casserole, it almost always costs something to incorporate them all. the judging would no longer be on a level playing field.

        it would be different if they assigned point values for taste, creativity, and presentation. hypothetically, for example, you could take a calculated risk that the 100 points lost for omitting a disgusting ingredient might be made up by a hoped-for 150 points awarded for better taste resulting from not including that ingredient. but that's not how they set up the game.

        of course there's also the part where they say on every episode that "you must use every ingredient in some way".

        2 Replies
        1. re: ta0126

          I think it should be an automatic chop. The mystery basket contains: vanilla, chocolate chips, cinnamon, eggs, and sardines. Two chefs go nuts trying to incorporate the fish into some sort of dessert, while one chef just leaves it out. It's a pretty sure bet that the fish-less dessert is gonna taste better. It is too inconsistent for me.

          1. re: NonnieMuss

            Usually it's that they just didn't get it on the plate in the race to finish

        2. Yes, they should be chopped. Also, on another Chopped thread here a few people were of the opinion that some people leave a weird ingredient out on purpose knowing it's not an automatic disqualification. That thought had never entered my mind until then. So double yes.

          1. I think there are more egregious errors than leaving out an ingredient. If I had to choose between the person who cut themselves and left blood on the plate and the one who left out an ingredient I would chop the one who cut themselves.

            1 Reply
            1. re: foodieX2

              "I would chop the one who cut themselves."

              Ouch. Kinda like adding injury to.... injury '-D