"Unanswered points"

[andycumbee19]

Back on track:

One thing that bugs me is when you are talking about a game with someone, they say the lower score first.

Ex: Dang man, that was a blowout last night! Michigan beat Illinois 14-31!

Everytime I hear this, this is sure to follow: <facepalm>

[McCall]

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.

The catcher has to "reach" up a certain height (can't remember exactly) for it to be a catch. Can't remember if it's above the shoulders or something, but they do have to make some type of attempt more than just it coming into their glove for it to be considered a catch-out and not just a strike (a 3rd strike that glances the bat and goes right into the glove is considered a 3rd strike and not a foul ball).

[Fox]

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.

The catcher has to "reach" up a certain height (can't remember exactly) for it to be a catch. Can't remember if it's above the shoulders or something, but they do have to make some type of attempt more than just it coming into their glove for it to be considered a catch-out and not just a strike (a 3rd strike that glances the bat and goes right into the glove is considered a 3rd strike and not a foul ball).

I don't know if this is the official rule, but what I was always told when I was younger was the ball has to be over the height of the batter's head.

[The_Admiral]

I hear "what's his phone number? "(Five-O-Five) Some may not realize that they say O and would typically dial 505. However some when they might hear Five-O-Five, might start dialing 565.

I don't think anyone who can fog a window has ever done this.

[The_Admiral]

How am I supposed to call Empire? My phone doesn't have a hundred button.

[BBTV]

How am I supposed to call Empire? My phone doesn't have a hundred button.

Nice.

[PurpleRush]

That's a Steven Wright bit.

"I got an irregular phone....it didn't have a 5 on it. I ran into a good friend and he asked me why I haven't called him.

I told him my phone didn't have a 5.

He asked me how long this has gone on.

I told him I didn't know.

my calendar doesn't have any sevens."

The lower score first bothers me too.

Joe Buck welcoming me into the broadcast booth is dumb too, because he and Aikman are in front of a screen, and we don't see anything resembling a broadcast booth.

[Chawls]

So what exactly is this thread about? Annoying sports termanology or the semantics of the number zero?

[Gothamite]

So what exactly is this thread about? Annoying sports termanology or the semantics of the number zero?

That plus short tempers, and I think you've got the general idea.

[Gothamite]

Nm dp

[Evil Doctor]

A game is scoreless, it's not "tied at zero" or a "0-0 tie".

My wife whines about that one all the time, so naturally I use the phrase 'scoreless tie' or 'tied at zero' or 'zero-zero tie" every chance I get...

[loogodude90]

A game is scoreless, it's not "tied at zero" or a "0-0 tie".

It depends on the context, though. There's nothing wrong with saying "... skated to a 0-0 tie."

And I really don't think "tied at zero" sounds that bad - especially if it is said by a live announcer.

[-kj]

But zero is an imaginary number!

[tBBP]

Chuck Norris can divide by zero.

[WSU151]

A game is scoreless, it's not "tied at zero" or a "0-0 tie".

It depends on the context, though. There's nothing wrong with saying "... skated to a 0-0 tie."

And I really don't think "tied at zero" sounds that bad - especially if it is said by a live announcer.

I agree to disagree. I think we have accepted phrases over time that are technically inaccurate.

But zero is an imaginary number!

Yeah, that's exactly what I said too... Show me zero of something. Anything.

[loogodude90]

I agree to disagree. I think we have accepted phrases over time that are technically inaccurate.

There's nothing inaccurate about 0-0 ties or tied at 0. Zero is a number, just like one, two, three, etc. If both teams have 0 points, then they are tied at 0, and it is a 0-0 tie.

There's more than one way to say the same thing. I'd rather announcers mix it up a little instead of saying "scoreless" every single time.

But zero is an imaginary number!

Yeah, that's exactly what I said too... Show me zero of something. Anything.

You don't have to see something for it to be a real number. By that logic, unless you can show me 1,345,567,894 of something, then that is an imaginary number.

Zero is not an imaginary number. The square root of negative 1 is an imaginary number.

[WSU151]

I agree to disagree. I think we have accepted phrases over time that are technically inaccurate.

There's nothing inaccurate about 0-0 ties or tied at 0.

Yes there is, but I'm not going to argue about it any more because you're never going to figure it out. Agree to disagree.

There's more than one way to say the same thing. I'd rather announcers mix it up a little instead of saying "scoreless" every single time.

Just because there is more than one way to say something doesn't mean it's correct. "Should of" is a different way of saying "should've." It's not really correct though.

But zero is an imaginary number!

Yeah, that's exactly what I said too... Show me zero of something. Anything.

You don't have to see something for it to be a real number. By that logic, unless you can show me 1,345,567,894 of something, then that is an imaginary number.

Zero is not an imaginary number. The square root of negative 1 is an imaginary number.

But in theory, I could show you 1,345,567,894 dollar bills, ears of corn, jars of peanut butter. I could show you that amount. In theory and in real life, I can't show you zero of something. In sports, it has to be a positive number to "have" something, like points. When a team "has" 50 points, it can show me how they accumulated them. A team can't show a fan how it "has" zero points. There's nothing to show.

-----------

Too many people on this board HAVE to be right about this. I've said a few times I'll agree to disagree and move on. BUT NOPE, LET'S KEEP ON :censored:ING ARGUING AND BEING :censored:ING SNOOTY ABOUT IT. It's a shame that this thread hasn't been graveyarded when it's more pointless than other threads in the graveyard. I've never questioned why mods do anything...but this is seriously a thread that needs to die. It's not doing any good staying active.

[BBTV]

As I posted before, I'm in the camp with those who believe that zero is the absence of a score and not a score itself, and therefore scoreless tie is better than 0-0. That being said, until scoreboard operators and broadcasts start displaying initial scores with just blanks as opposed to the 0 digit, it's fine to say 0-0 because that's what the scoreboard literally shows. It's not a big deal.

[The_Admiral]

Even I find this petty.

[loogodude90]

"Should of" is a different way of saying "should've."

No, it's not. One is wrong, and one is right. "should of" is wrong, and "shoud've" is right.

On the other hand, "0-0 tie," "tied at 0," and "scoreless tie" are all correct. No matter how bad you don't want them to be.

But in theory, I could show you 1,345,567,894 dollar bills, ears of corn, jars of peanut butter. I could show you that amount. In theory and in real life, I can't show you zero of something. In sports, it has to be a positive number to "have" something, like points. When a team "has" 50 points, it can show me how they accumulated them. A team can't show a fan how it "has" zero points. There's nothing to show.

And you can also show me that you have zero dollars in your hand, by opening your hand and there being zero dollars there. That means you have zero dollars in your hand. Didn't they teach you this stuff in elementary school?

A team has zero points by not scoring. Zero is a number, and it is a number of points a team can have. That is why they display "0" on the scoreboard, rather than a question mark or something of that ilk.

BUT NOPE, LET'S KEEP ON :censored:ING ARGUING AND BEING :censored:ING SNOOTY ABOUT IT. It's a shame that this thread hasn't been graveyarded when it's more pointless than other threads in the graveyard. I've never questioned why mods do anything...but this is seriously a thread that needs to die. It's not doing any good staying active.

It's hilarious that you posted this rant after everything you posted right before it.

Even I find this petty.

Welcome to the CCSLC, or more generally, the Internet. Don't view these threads if you don't expect to see petty disagreements. Surely you've learned that by now? Anyway, it's all in good fun as long as people don't take it too seriously *cough* WSU151 *cough*.