Jump to content

"Unanswered points"


PurpleRush

Recommended Posts

a little bit different, but one thing that annoys me is a batter will barely get a piece of a ball and will foul it off (not a ball caught by the catcher) and the announcer calls it a "foul tip." A foul tip is only a tipped ball that is caught by the catcher. While it might seem trivial, it's actually very important to know because a foul tip is the same as a swing and a miss... not just on two strikes, all of the time. The ball is live when it's tipped and caught by the catcher.

594dd21ce423b_SmallHats.png.3601f33ba30ee66006c37617c7069ace.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Most "double reverse" calls are incorrect. It's a double reverse if three backs touch the ball, which doesn't happen that often at all. Most of the time it's a single reverse: one back runs one way, and pitches to the other back who "reserves" direction.

Unless I'm the one who's wrong. (which is possible)

1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said:

and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to have two teams score to have a tie

Um... what? :wacko:

Sorry - both teams must score for it to be considered a tie. 0-0 is scoreless. Not a tie. There are no scores tied up. "Nothing-nothing" is more appropriate than "0-0 tie". In real world talk, it's the same. You don't have zero money...you have no money. A team can't have zero points...rather, they have no points.

No. A game score always includes two numbers. That score starts at 0-0.

No. The game is scoreless before anyone scores. Think about it. A game score is a quick and convenient recap of all the scoring that has happened.

It doesn't mean that the game doesn't have a score, it means that neither team has "scored".

If neither team has scored, then the game is scoreless. There is no score. The saying should be "nothing-nothing" when referring to the score.

Agree to disagree. But know that I'm right :D

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most "double reverse" calls are incorrect. It's a double reverse if three backs touch the ball, which doesn't happen that often at all. Most of the time it's a single reverse: one back runs one way, and pitches to the other back who "reserves" direction.

Unless I'm the one who's wrong. (which is possible)

No you're correct. The original run is a sweep or a jet. The handoff or pitch starts the first reverse. There usually is no second reverse. A second reverse implies it's going the same direction as the original play.

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you hear that much?

I listen to almost a hundred baseball games a year, and I don't remember ever hearing "foul tip" used for a ball fouled back that didn't end up in the mitt.

On a semi related note, this has been bothering me for some time now.

How come when the batter fouls the ball up into the air backwards and it's caught by the catcher and it's an out, yet when it's just fouled off the bat directly back into the catcher's glove, it's only a strike? I understand that's how the rules are, I just don't understand why they're separate rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you hear that much?

I listen to almost a hundred baseball games a year, and I don't remember ever hearing "foul tip" used for a ball fouled back that didn't end up in the mitt.

I'm with you. Unless Fox meant "tipped foul".

Maybe not just broadcasters... more so fans. And other baseball players and coaches that I'm around, they call dropped foul balls a foul tip.

Whoever it is, it happened enough to get my attention and it kind of irks me.

594dd21ce423b_SmallHats.png.3601f33ba30ee66006c37617c7069ace.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most "double reverse" calls are incorrect. It's a double reverse if three backs touch the ball, which doesn't happen that often at all. Most of the time it's a single reverse: one back runs one way, and pitches to the other back who "reserves" direction.

Unless I'm the one who's wrong. (which is possible)

No you're correct. The original run is a sweep or a jet. The handoff or pitch starts the first reverse. There usually is no second reverse. A second reverse implies it's going the same direction as the original play.

Sometimes a play is called a "reverse" when its really a misdirection. So you have one back going right, they hand the ball off left. Reverse. If he in turns hands it off to a wide reciever going right, now you have a double reverse. Or maybe not.

At least that's what we called "34 Reverse" in high school. Everyone and their brother went right except a pulling guard, pulling tackle and a wing back heading left. Still only one handoff.

Honestly anytime you see the entire defense going one way and then stop on a dime and go the other regardless of what happens with the ball I think of it as a reverse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soccer "goalies". They're "keepers", people.

Hockey= Goalie

Soccer=Keeper

On September 20, 2012 at 0:50 AM, 'CS85 said:

It's like watching the hellish undead creakily shuffling their way out of the flames of a liposuction clinic dumpster fire.

On February 19, 2012 at 9:30 AM, 'pianoknight said:

Story B: Red Wings go undefeated and score 100 goals in every game. They also beat a team comprised of Godzilla, the ghost of Abraham Lincoln, 2 Power Rangers and Betty White. Oh, and they played in the middle of Iraq on a military base. In the sand. With no ice. Santa gave them special sand-skates that allowed them to play in shorts and t-shirts in 115 degree weather. Jesus, Zeus and Buddha watched from the sidelines and ate cotton candy.

POTD 5/24/12POTD 2/26/17

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soccer "goalies". They're "keepers", people.

Hockey= Goalie

Soccer=Keeper

If you want to really get technical, Hockey is "goaltenders" and soccer is "goalkeepers".

"Goalie" can be short for both. Hockey is "tenders" and Soccer is "keepers". (Lacrosse, at least when I played in field, is goalkeeper as well.)

5963ddf2a9031_dkO1LMUcopy.jpg.0fe00e17f953af170a32cde8b7be6bc7.jpg

| ANA | LAA | LAR | LAL | ASU | CSULBUSMNT | USWNTLAFC | OCSCMAN UTD |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to have two teams score to have a tie

Um... what? :wacko:

Sorry - both teams must score for it to be considered a tie. 0-0 is scoreless. Not a tie. There are no scores tied up. "Nothing-nothing" is more appropriate than "0-0 tie". In real world talk, it's the same. You don't have zero money...you have no money. A team can't have zero points...rather, they have no points.

No. A game score always includes two numbers. That score starts at 0-0.

No. The game is scoreless before anyone scores. Think about it. A game score is a quick and convenient recap of all the scoring that has happened.

It doesn't mean that the game doesn't have a score, it means that neither team has "scored".

If neither team has scored, then the game is scoreless. There is no score. The saying should be "nothing-nothing" when referring to the score.

Agree to disagree. But know that I'm right :D

The issue you're having is that 'score' has a double meaning in most sports. The act of achieving the goal of the game is one of those, and the comparrison between two teams is another. 0-0 is still a score, as in the final score was 0-0. However its also true to say of a 0-0 games that it was a scoreless game because neither team scored, as in achieving the goal of that game.

0-0 is still a score, though it is one that indicates noone scored in the game.

Wembley-1.png

2011/12 WFL Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread reminds me of a phrase my boss uses all the time: "moving forward"

What, am I going to backwards in time?

Ah yes, corporate buzzwords and doublespeak. I once worked for a company who reported not a loss but a "net cash outflow." And what would we do about it? "Take immediate steps to assume a more upright competitive posture." Wow, how about we just improve our service? Oh wait...

Changing paradigms, realigning, right-sizing, leveraging, customer-driven, blah blah blah.

92512B20-6264-4E6C-AAF2-7A1D44E9958B-481-00000047E259721F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree to disagree. But know that I'm right :D

The English language begs to differ.

According to you?? Oh, ok. <_< Let me know when you publish your rules and regulations of the English language.

The issue you're having is that 'score' has a double meaning in most sports. The act of achieving the goal of the game is one of those, and the comparrison between two teams is another. 0-0 is still a score, as in the final score was 0-0. However its also true to say of a 0-0 games that it was a scoreless game because neither team scored, as in achieving the goal of that game.

You are actually incorrect, which is why I've posted the saying in this thread. People accept a score of 0-0 because they have become accustomed to using the phrase. It's easy, it's simple, but it's not technically correct.

0-0 is still a score, though it is one that indicates noone scored in the game.

No, it's not a score. We've accepted it as a score, just like we accept people saying "offsides", "should of", "irregardless", and other :censored:.

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's not a score. We've accepted it as a score, just like we accept people saying "offsides", "should of", "irregardless", and other :censored:.

If a game ends 0-0, what was the score of the game? You don't say there was no score. You say the score was 0-0. I don't see how this doesn't make sense.

Yes, a 0-0 game is scoreless. When you say this, you are actually referring to "score" as a verb - the act of tallying points in a game. In a 0-0 game, there has not yet been a score (verb). However, the score (noun) is 0-0.

Better now?

BigStuffChamps3_zps00980734.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soccer "goalies". They're "keepers", people.

Hockey= Goalie

Soccer=Keeper

I've always preferred the term "netminder", myself. ^_^

Back on topic of annoying phrases...here's one that each and every time I hear it makes me want to throw a brick through the TV or directly into the teeth of whoever said it: "[so-and-so] is as good a player as I've seen."

WHAT THE BLOODY BLUE HELL DOES THAT MEAN???

Is that to imply every player you've seen is good? Or is every player bad? As you've seen? How about as I've seen? Or as he's seen? Can that phrase just be abolished already???

(Coincidentally, the heads at the Worldwide Hype Machine seem to be the worst about this...particularly Mike Tirico and Ron Jaworski.)

*Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. 😁

|| dribbble || Behance ||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's not a score. We've accepted it as a score, just like we accept people saying "offsides", "should of", "irregardless", and other :censored:.

If a game ends 0-0, what was the score of the game? You don't say there was no score.

Sure you do. It was a scoreless game. It implies that the scoreboard read "0-0" and there was no scoring by either team.

The noun is a recap of the verb.

The pure definition of a score (noun) is a "scratch or a tally of points gained". Look it up. If there's nothing to tally, there's no score.

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.