Unanswered goals
Peter Brandt Nielsen
that they got three in a row?
If so, isn't it an odd term? If the other team starts scoring after the
three goals, then the last of the three isn't really unanswered, is it?
--
Peter Brandt Nielsen
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
It seems to be North American sporting terminology. I've looked at a few
reports that use the phrase. I think the idea is that a team has scored
three goals in succession without the opposing team scoring a gaol "in
response" to each one. I think the phrase would be used only of goals
that result in a win.
I'm not sure that the phrase is used with an great degree of precision.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
tony cooper
<peterbran...@gmail.com> wrote:
You are correct that three unanswered goals means that the team scored
three goals before the other team scored, although not correct about
"in a row". There can be several failed attempts between the
successful attempts.
The term describes the action up to a point in time. At that point in
time, the statement is true. It would not be said after the other
team scores.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mark Brader
> If a team is said to score three unanswered goals, does it just mean
> that they got three in a row?
It's more specific: the opponents haven't scored since the last one.
> If so, isn't it an odd term? If the other team starts scoring after the
> three goals, then the last of the three isn't really unanswered, is it?
See above.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto, m...@vex.net C unions never strike!
tony cooper
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:59:26 +0200, Peter Brandt Nielsen
><peterbran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>If a team is said to score three unanswered goals, does it just mean
>>that they got three in a row?
>>
>>If so, isn't it an odd term? If the other team starts scoring after the
>>three goals, then the last of the three isn't really unanswered, is it?
>
>It seems to be North American sporting terminology. I've looked at a few
>reports that use the phrase. I think the idea is that a team has scored
>three goals in succession without the opposing team scoring a gaol "in
>response" to each one. I think the phrase would be used only of goals
>that result in a win.
Not at all. It is a phrase that is used during the playing of a game.
It describes something that occurs during the play with the
understanding that it is a temporary description. It can be used to
describe a portion of a game that has been completed (Duke scored 6
unanswered points in the first half) and used to describe what
happened to either the winning or losing team.
>I'm not sure that the phrase is used with an great degree of precision.
The precision may not be apparent to someone who doesn't understand
sports talk, but it's a very precise description of what transpired if
you do understand sports talk.
Vinny Burgoo
[...]
> The precision may not be apparent to someone who doesn't understand
> sports talk, but it's a very precise description of what transpired if
> you do understand sports talk.
Or even if you don't, to be precise.
More sports talk:
<http://www.charltonlife.com/forum/comments.php?
DiscussionID=5721&page=1>
--
VB
"It's now 1-1, an exact reversal of the score on Saturday."
Jonathan Morton
news:HridneBCeIDzKyHW...@vex.net...
> Peter Nielsen writes:
>> If a team is said to score three unanswered goals, does it just mean
>> that they got three in a row?
>
> It's more specific: the opponents haven't scored since the last one.
>
>> If so, isn't it an odd term? If the other team starts scoring after the
>> three goals, then the last of the three isn't really unanswered, is it?
I don't see it as unintelligible from a BrE perspective - though "scored
three without reply" would probably be the use here. In BrE it would
probably mean that one team had won the match 3-0 - or at least sewn the
match up before the other side got going. There might, of course, then be a
"consolation goal" if the final score were 3-1.
Regards
Jonathan
Peter Brandt Nielsen
> You are correct that three unanswered goals means that the team scored
> three goals before the other team scored, although not correct about
> "in a row". There can be several failed attempts between the
> successful attempts.
Point taken.
> The term describes the action up to a point in time. At that point in
> time, the statement is true. It would not be said after the other
> team scores.
If the other team fails to score afterwards, or at all, I understand
completely. I see now that does seem to be the way it is commonly used.
M-W's definition didn't suggest this to me: "scored in succession during
a period in which an opponent fails to score".
I came across it in a sports betting context where the bet was "first
team to score 3 unanswered goals". I took it to mean that the bet would
be decided at the point when the third goal was scored.
--
Peter Brandt Nielsen
Eric Walker
[...]
> The precision may not be apparent to someone who doesn't understand
> sports talk, but it's a very precise description of what transpired if
> you do understand sports talk.
Leaked out of where?
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
tony cooper
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
Speaking of precision, how does one score a "gaol"?
tony cooper
<peterbran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> You are correct that three unanswered goals means that the team scored
>> three goals before the other team scored, although not correct about
>> "in a row". There can be several failed attempts between the
>> successful attempts.
>
>Point taken.
>
>> The term describes the action up to a point in time. At that point in
>> time, the statement is true. It would not be said after the other
>> team scores.
>
>If the other team fails to score afterwards, or at all, I understand
>completely. I see now that does seem to be the way it is commonly used.
The total number of goals scored by either team has nothing to do with
the bet. The only thing that matters is the scoring of three goals by
one team with a goal scored between those three goals by the other
team.
>M-W's definition didn't suggest this to me: "scored in succession during
>a period in which an opponent fails to score".
The "period", in this case, is an undetermined period of time. It is
not necessarily the complete official period as in the first period of
a hockey game...20 minutes. Three unanswered goals might be scored in
the first five minutes of the first period.
>
>I came across it in a sports betting context where the bet was "first
>team to score 3 unanswered goals". I took it to mean that the bet would
>be decided at the point when the third goal was scored.
That's the way I would take it. In the hockey example above, the bet
would be won if one team scored three unanswered goals but lost the
game by a score of 4 to 3. The conditions of the bet have been met
when the team scored three unanswered goals. What happened before or
after that is irrelevant.
tony cooper
In the US, the total number of goals or points scored by either side
is irrelative. Also irrelative is who wins. The only thing that
counts is that one team, at some time during the game, scores three
times without an intervening score by the other team.
In a basketball game, there might be multiple instances of three or
more unanswered scores, and both teams might accomplish this.
Jonathan Morton
news:ufrpr5d8csik5rvmn...@4ax.com...
Thanks. That explains a lot. I can see that that would make a big difference
to the usage.
Regards
Jonathan
Mark Brader
>>>> If a team is said to score three unanswered goals, does it just mean
>>>> that they got three in a row?
Mark Brader:
>>> It's more specific: the opponents haven't scored since the last one.
Tony Cooper:
> In the US, the total number of goals or points scored by either side
> is irrelative.
Huh? <onelook> Huh! It *is* another word for irrelevant. Thanks!
> Also irrelative is who wins. The only thing that
> counts is that one team, at some time during the game, scores three
> times without an intervening score by the other team.
But they only remain "unanswered" until the other team *does* score.
--
Mark Brader "...there are other means of persuasion
m...@vex.net besides killing and threatening to kill."
Toronto --Dashiell Hammett, The Maltese Falcon
tony cooper
>Peter Nielsen:
>>>>> If a team is said to score three unanswered goals, does it just mean
>>>>> that they got three in a row?
>
>Mark Brader:
>>>> It's more specific: the opponents haven't scored since the last one.
>
>Tony Cooper:
>> In the US, the total number of goals or points scored by either side
>> is irrelative.
>
>Huh? <onelook> Huh! It *is* another word for irrelevant. Thanks!
>
>> Also irrelative is who wins. The only thing that
>> counts is that one team, at some time during the game, scores three
>> times without an intervening score by the other team.
>
>But they only remain "unanswered" until the other team *does* score.
So what? If the play-by-play announcer says "Duke has scored six
unanswered points" we understand that the announcer means "as of now"
just as we understand that if he says "The score is 62-60" that he
means "as of now". If something happens in the next few seconds that
change the situation, the statement was no less correct at the time it
was made.
Robert Bannister
I read it as "three unanswered goats" so it made perfect sense to me.
--
Rob Bannister
R H Draney
>
>So what? If the play-by-play announcer says "Duke has scored six
>unanswered points" we understand that the announcer means "as of now"
>just as we understand that if he says "The score is 62-60" that he
>means "as of now". If something happens in the next few seconds that
>change the situation, the statement was no less correct at the time it
>was made.
So if Duke scores seven points in a row, and their opponent scores, Duke has
scored six unanswered points that *remain* unanswered....
("And here's a partial score: Stanford, 25"--George Carlin as Biff Burns)
....r
--
"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly."
- Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle
Evan Kirshenbaum
But even when talking about the past, you can refer to them as
"unanswered" as long as you mention the endpoint, e.g., "ESU scored 15
unanswered points in the first half before Wassamata went on a run of
their own to narrow the lead to five."
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There are just two rules of
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |governance in a free society: Mind
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |your own business. Keep your hands
|to yourself.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke
(650)857-7572
tony cooper
>tony cooper filted:
>>
>>So what? If the play-by-play announcer says "Duke has scored six
>>unanswered points" we understand that the announcer means "as of now"
>>just as we understand that if he says "The score is 62-60" that he
>>means "as of now". If something happens in the next few seconds that
>>change the situation, the statement was no less correct at the time it
>>was made.
>
>So if Duke scores seven points in a row, and their opponent scores, Duke has
>scored six unanswered points that *remain* unanswered....
It wouldn't be looked at that way. Duke would be credited for scoring
seven unanswered points in the x half. Once that series of unanswered
points ends, the series is over and is only referred to as something
that happened earlier. The series is not diminished by one because it
no longer exists as a series.
It's the same as saying that Duke led by five points after x minutes
into the game. You don't diminish the five because that lead was cut
in later minutes. It is a fact that Duke led by five at one time in
the game. A few minutes later Duke may have led by only three points,
but the fact remains that Duke led by five after x minutes.
I know that some people object to the phrase "point in time", but
statements regarding a series of unanswered points or amount of points
in the lead are only facts about what was true at a particular point
in time. You don't go back and readjust the facts because something
else has transpired.
tony cooper
I don't see the "but". I don't know what you mean by the endpoint, but
if it is total number of unanswered points, of course you mention it.
You can hardly describe the feat without providing that number. You
don't ever say "ESU scored unanswered points". That doesn't mean
anything. A single basket before the opposition scores is an
unanswered point. It's the series that is mentionable.
> e.g., "ESU scored 15
>unanswered points in the first half before Wassamata went on a run of
>their own to narrow the lead to five."
Look, I know you understand this, and that you know that I understand
this. You're attempting to make it more complicated than it is.
Too bad about the Stanford women, BTW.
Peter Brandt Nielsen
>> If the other team fails to score afterwards, or at all, I understand
>> completely. I see now that does seem to be the way it is commonly used.
>
> The total number of goals scored by either team has nothing to do with
> the bet. The only thing that matters is the scoring of three goals by
> one team with a goal scored between those three goals by the other
> team.
(Without.)
I started to look at Google results, and the ones I looked at were about
cases where the other team did not come back to score in the quarter or
half or match mentioned. Looking again, I can find other types of
results, though they may be more rare.
>> I came across it in a sports betting context where the bet was "first
>> team to score 3 unanswered goals". I took it to mean that the bet would
>> be decided at the point when the third goal was scored.
>
> That's the way I would take it. In the hockey example above, the bet
> would be won if one team scored three unanswered goals but lost the
> game by a score of 4 to 3. The conditions of the bet have been met
> when the team scored three unanswered goals. What happened before or
> after that is irrelevant.
Understood. The usage still strikes me as odd when, even after the
match, you would count all three goals as "unanswered" even if the other
team scored immediately after the third one.
--
Peter Brandt Nielsen
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 19:22:04 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
>>tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:37:29 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>>>
>>>>But they only remain "unanswered" until the other team *does*
>>>>score.
>>>
>>> So what? If the play-by-play announcer says "Duke has scored six
>>> unanswered points" we understand that the announcer means "as of
>>> now" just as we understand that if he says "The score is 62-60"
>>> that he means "as of now". If something happens in the next few
>>> seconds that change the situation, the statement was no less
>>> correct at the time it was made.
>>
>>But even when talking about the past, you can refer to them as
>>"unanswered" as long as you mention the endpoint,
>
> I don't see the "but".
The "but" is that it doesn't always mean "as of now". Sometimes it
means "before the other team scored".
> I don't know what you mean by the endpoint, but if it is total
> number of unanswered points, of course you mention it. You can
> hardly describe the feat without providing that number. You don't
> ever say "ESU scored unanswered points". That doesn't mean
> anything. A single basket before the opposition scores is an
> unanswered point. It's the series that is mentionable.
I mean that you can talk about a string that's no longer "unanswered"
if you give an explicit (or implicit?) stopping point, i.e., when the
other team scored. You're saying that the points were unanswered
*before* that happened. If Wassamata just scored, you wouldn't say
"ESU has scored 15 unanswered points", but you might say "ESU had
scored 15 unanswered points before that basket."
>> e.g., "ESU scored 15
>>unanswered points in the first half before Wassamata went on a run of
>>their own to narrow the lead to five."
>
> Look, I know you understand this, and that you know that I understand
> this. You're attempting to make it more complicated than it is.
>
> Too bad about the Stanford women, BTW.
Tell me about it. With Appel even 80%, I think they would have won
with no problem, but it was painful to watch her keep trying to
elevate on her injured leg, and they weren't going to do it without
her, if only as a threat to pull the defense away from the others.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |To find the end of Middle English,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |you discover the exact date and
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |time the Great Vowel Shift took
|place (the morning of May 5, 1450,
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |at some time between neenuh fiftehn
(650)857-7572 |and nahyn twenty-fahyv).
| Kevin Wald
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
John Holmes
> tony cooper filted:
>>
>> So what? If the play-by-play announcer says "Duke has scored six
>> unanswered points" we understand that the announcer means "as of now"
>> just as we understand that if he says "The score is 62-60" that he
>> means "as of now". If something happens in the next few seconds that
>> change the situation, the statement was no less correct at the time
>> it was made.
>
> So if Duke scores seven points in a row, and their opponent scores,
> Duke has scored six unanswered points that *remain* unanswered....
If the opponents score three in a row, do they now have three unanswered
points, or are their points still counting as answers to some of the
previous seven? That is to say, do they have to have answered all seven
before they can start having unanswered points of their own?
Or are the first six of the seven-point streak doomed to remain forever
unanswered no matter what the opposition does?
And are there stats for all the points left unanswered at the end of the
season?
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
tony cooper
I can understand that it seems odd to you, but I hope you understand
that the scoring of unanswered points has no bearing on the game
because the points were scored this way. Five baskets scored by one
team count for 10 points* whether or not they were in a series of
unanswered points. Noting that there was a series of points scored
unanswered is only an observation of the temporary dominance of one
team.
* A basket counts for one, two, or three points. A made free throw is
one point, a made basket from outside of the 3-point line is three
points, and all other made baskets are two points. My example above
uses five 2-point baskets.
tony cooper
<peterbran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>tony cooper skrev:
>
>>> If the other team fails to score afterwards, or at all, I understand
>>> completely. I see now that does seem to be the way it is commonly used.
>>
>> The total number of goals scored by either team has nothing to do with
>> the bet. The only thing that matters is the scoring of three goals by
>> one team with a goal scored between those three goals by the other
>> team.
>
>(Without.)
>
>I started to look at Google results, and the ones I looked at were about
>cases where the other team did not come back to score in the quarter or
>half or match mentioned. Looking again, I can find other types of
>results, though they may be more rare.
I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't expect to see a reference
to unanswered points scored in some sports. "Yes" in basketball and
football, but "No" in hockey and baseball.
tony cooper
wrote:
>R H Draney wrote:
>> tony cooper filted:
>>>
>>> So what? If the play-by-play announcer says "Duke has scored six
>>> unanswered points" we understand that the announcer means "as of now"
>>> just as we understand that if he says "The score is 62-60" that he
>>> means "as of now". If something happens in the next few seconds that
>>> change the situation, the statement was no less correct at the time
>>> it was made.
>>
>> So if Duke scores seven points in a row, and their opponent scores,
>> Duke has scored six unanswered points that *remain* unanswered....
>
>If the opponents score three in a row, do they now have three unanswered
>points,
Yes.
> or are their points still counting as answers to some of the
>previous seven?
The only aspect of the opponent's streak that relates to the first
streak is that first point scored that ended the first streak.
> That is to say, do they have to have answered all seven
>before they can start having unanswered points of their own?
The points are not answered individually in any case. The streak,
when answered, has ended. It no longer exists other than as part of
some record keeping and the total score.
>Or are the first six of the seven-point streak doomed to remain forever
>unanswered no matter what the opposition does?
Yes. Try to understand that the streak is what is being described,
not the individual points.
>And are there stats for all the points left unanswered at the end of the
>season?
Probably, but of the streaks and not the individual points. People
keep all sorts of records. None of them are particularly important
except the final score. All that really matters is the won/lost
record of the team. The margin of victory/defeat may be important in
the coach's future with the team, though.
You do cricket? A newspaper account of a cricket game may state that
the bowler struck out (?) nine batters in a row. If the tenth batter
got a hit, the statement that nine batters in a row were struck out
remains true. If the 11th batter also gets a hit, you don't reduce
the nine batters to eight.
There might be stats kept on the number of batters a particular bowler
struck out, or even stats on the number of batters in a row the bowler
struck out, but they are of importance only as pub trivia.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Probably, but of the streaks and not the individual points. People
> keep all sorts of records. None of them are particularly important
> except the final score. All that really matters is the won/lost
> record of the team. The margin of victory/defeat may be important
> in the coach's future with the team, though.
Unless you're in a tournament, in which case things like points
allowed, points scored, and average point differential may be
officially used as tie-breakers for seeding in later rounds. (One of
my son's baseball teams recently got down to, I think, the fourth
tie-breaker for seeding into the second round of a tournament.)
I can't see streaks being a useful (as opposed to interesting)
statistic, but all sorts of statistics are important for making
coaching decisions (and, therefore, to the players).
> You do cricket? A newspaper account of a cricket game may state
> that the bowler struck out (?)
Nope.
> nine batters
Come on. "Batsmen". Even I know that.
> in a row. If the tenth batter got a hit, the statement that nine
> batters in a row were struck out remains true. If the 11th batter
> also gets a hit, you don't reduce the nine batters to eight.
>
> There might be stats kept on the number of batters a particular
> bowler struck out, or even stats on the number of batters in a row
> the bowler struck out, but they are of importance only as pub
> trivia.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |barbarian and thinks that the
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |customs of his tribe and island are
|the laws of nature.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |
(650)857-7572 | George Bernard Shaw
Evan Kirshenbaum
> * A basket counts for one, two, or three points. A made free throw
> is one point, a made basket from outside of the 3-point line is
> three points, and all other made baskets are two points. My example
> above uses five 2-point baskets.
Is that just a simplification for explanatory purposes or do you
really consider free throws to be "baskets"? I think I've always had
them as a separate category and considered "basket" to be equivalent
to "field goal", which might be worth two or three points depending on
where it was shot from.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |I like giving talks to industry,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |because one of the things that I've
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |found is that you really can't
|learn anything at the Harvard
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |Business School.
(650)857-7572 | Clayton Christensen
| Harvard Business School
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Mark Brader
> I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't expect to see a reference
> to unanswered points scored in some sports. "Yes" in basketball and
> football, but "No" in hockey and baseball.
Huh? This thread started with "unanswered goals", not "unanswered points".
What did you imagine they were talking about if not hockey?
Baseball is different because of the way the teams take turns batting.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "...and if sooner or later your revels must be ended,
m...@vex.net | well, at least you reveled." --Roger Ebert
franzi
> tony cooper<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> You do cricket? A newspaper account of a cricket game may state
>> that the bowler struck out (?)
>
> Nope.
>
>> nine batters
>
> Come on. "Batsmen". Even I know that.
>
Formally correct. The Laws of Cricket speak of batsmen, and until
recently there was no other term used in the game. Apart from things
like 'pillock', but those were different.
Purists will be upset, but the term used by Tony has now crept into the
players' vocabularies. My impression is that it has come to England by
way of Australian or South African cricket.
--
franzi
tony cooper
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> * A basket counts for one, two, or three points. A made free throw
>> is one point, a made basket from outside of the 3-point line is
>> three points, and all other made baskets are two points. My example
>> above uses five 2-point baskets.
>
>Is that just a simplification for explanatory purposes or do you
>really consider free throws to be "baskets"? I think I've always had
>them as a separate category and considered "basket" to be equivalent
>to "field goal", which might be worth two or three points depending on
>where it was shot from.
I've never really thought about it, but - yes - I consider a free
throw to be a "basket". The score is counted along with the
two-pointers and three-pointers. They are listed separately in the
stats, but only for informational purposes.
It certainly wouldn't surprise me, or cause me to think about what was
said, if the play-by-play announcer would say "Jones has made six
baskets; two free throws and four field goals. However, I think he is
more likely to say "Jones has scored 10 points including two free
throws".
Basketball has changed so much since I was in high school and college
in Indiana. In the Butler/Duke game some player was called for
traveling. It startled me. It's rarely called anymore. Do they
still call double-dribble? Players seem to take the ball from one end
of the court to the other with three touches of the ball to the
hardwood and get away dribble-hold-dribble all the time.
I would not describe them as "field goals", but then I don't really
hear that term used very much. For that matter, I don't hear
"baskets" as much anymore. Players score points. They score.
tony cooper
>Tony Cooper:
>> I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't expect to see a reference
>> to unanswered points scored in some sports. "Yes" in basketball and
>> football, but "No" in hockey and baseball.
>
>Huh? This thread started with "unanswered goals", not "unanswered points".
>What did you imagine they were talking about if not hockey?
Not hockey, that's for sure. Hockey scores are all too often one
unanswered goal...for the whole game.
>Baseball is different because of the way the teams take turns batting.
--
tony cooper
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> Probably, but of the streaks and not the individual points. People
>> keep all sorts of records. None of them are particularly important
>> except the final score. All that really matters is the won/lost
>> record of the team. The margin of victory/defeat may be important
>> in the coach's future with the team, though.
>
>Unless you're in a tournament, in which case things like points
>allowed, points scored, and average point differential may be
>officially used as tie-breakers for seeding in later rounds. (One of
>my son's baseball teams recently got down to, I think, the fourth
>tie-breaker for seeding into the second round of a tournament.)
>
>I can't see streaks being a useful (as opposed to interesting)
>statistic, but all sorts of statistics are important for making
>coaching decisions (and, therefore, to the players).
>
>> You do cricket? A newspaper account of a cricket game may state
>> that the bowler struck out (?)
>
>Nope.
>
>> nine batters
>
>Come on. "Batsmen". Even I know that.
>
Look. If I start using the correct terminology it only encourages
them.
Default User
> On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:41:49 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>
>>Tony Cooper:
>>> I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't expect to see a reference
>>> to unanswered points scored in some sports. "Yes" in basketball and
>>> football, but "No" in hockey and baseball.
>>
>>Huh? This thread started with "unanswered goals", not "unanswered
>>points".
>>What did you imagine they were talking about if not hockey?
>
> Not hockey, that's for sure. Hockey scores are all too often one
> unanswered goal...for the whole game.
If you mean many games end 1-0, then I would dispute that. If you mean many
games end with a one-goal differential, then that's probably nearer the
truth, which is why hockey is one of the most exciting sports around.
Brian
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Basketball has changed so much since I was in high school and college
> in Indiana. In the Butler/Duke game some player was called for
> traveling. It startled me. It's rarely called anymore.
It's been called a fair bit more this year, especially in the women's
game. It's been a "point of emphasis" there for the past three years.
> Do they still call double-dribble?
They do, but not all that often. Maybe once every few games.
> Players seem to take the ball from one end of the court to the other
> with three touches of the ball to the hardwood and get away
> dribble-hold-dribble all the time.
Part of it, I think, is that the interpretation of the rule has
changed. As I read the rule
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/BR11.pdf
(Section 70), what normally happens that looks like travelling is the
following:
Player A takes off off his left foot and catches the ball (either
on a pass or picking up his dribble). He comes down on his right
foot and takes off again. When his left foot comes down, his right
foot (�70(1)(a)(2)) becomes the pivot foot. He takes off from his
left foot and gets rid of the ball before his right (pivot) foot
comes down again.
I don't know what's happening with double dribbles. The rule says
that a dribble ends when (among other things)
The dribbleer catches or carries/palms the ball by allowing it to
come to rest in one or both hands. (�21(4)(a))
Unfortunately, that's the only time "carries" or "palms" is used, so
perhaps refs have decided that what used to be called doesn't count
anymore unless the player has really stopped their forward progress.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The purpose of writing is to inflate
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and inhibit clarity. With a little
|practice, writing can be an
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |intimidating and impenetrable fog!
(650)857-7572 | Calvin
Robert Bannister
Undoubtedly, the claim that soccer is the most exciting sport is proved
by the number of goalless draws.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
I suspect the self-acclaimed purists started using "fielders" for
"fieldsmen" even before Australia, but now there is a set: bowler,
fielder, keeper, batter, nutter, supporter.
--
Rob Bannister
Peter Brandt Nielsen
> Huh? This thread started with "unanswered goals", not "unanswered points".
> What did you imagine they were talking about if not hockey?
I found it used for several sports including soccer, field hockey, lacrosse.
When I originally saw it the subject was handball.
--
Peter Brandt Nielsen
Evan Kirshenbaum
> In message <wrwi7x...@hpl.hp.com> Evan Kirshenbaum
> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>> tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>> * A basket counts for one, two, or three points. A made free throw
>>> is one point, a made basket from outside of the 3-point line is
>>> three points, and all other made baskets are two points. My example
>>> above uses five 2-point baskets.
>
>> Is that just a simplification for explanatory purposes or do you
>> really consider free throws to be "baskets"? I think I've always
>> had them as a separate category and considered "basket" to be
>> equivalent to "field goal", which might be worth two or three
>> points depending on where it was shot from.
>
> I agree. A free throw is a free throw, not a basket or field goal.
>
> Field Goal in basketball seems to be completely dead though.
Except in the phrase "field goal percentage". And, not too
infrequently, "... went ten minutes without scoring a field goal" when
a team wasn't scoreless, but only scored on free throws.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Bullwinkle: You sure that's the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | only way?
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Rocky: Well, if you're going to be
| a hero, you've got to do
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | stupid things every once in
(650)857-7572 | a while.
tony cooper
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>In message <wrwi7x...@hpl.hp.com>
> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>> tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>> * A basket counts for one, two, or three points. A made free throw
>>> is one point, a made basket from outside of the 3-point line is
>>> three points, and all other made baskets are two points. My example
>>> above uses five 2-point baskets.
>
>> Is that just a simplification for explanatory purposes or do you
>> really consider free throws to be "baskets"? I think I've always had
>> them as a separate category and considered "basket" to be equivalent
>> to "field goal", which might be worth two or three points depending on
>> where it was shot from.
>
>I agree. A free throw is a free throw, not a basket or field goal.
If you choose that path, how do you differentiate a missed free throw
from a free throw that goes in the basket?
Evan Kirshenbaum
As with baskets, a successful attempt is a "made free throw", and an
unsuccessful attempt is a "missed free throw". Typically the the verb
tells you whether you're talking about successful attempts ("hit five
free throws") or attempts in general ("shot five free throws"). When
reading stats, you'll see so many "free throws" out of so many
"attempts".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If the human brain were so simple
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |That we could understand it,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |We would be so simple
|That we couldn't.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
tony cooper
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
Of course I understand the above, but to say that a made free throw is
not a basket, but a made field goal is a basket, is simply ludicrous
to me. What makes them "made" is that they are baskets.
Using the stats to make your point just doesn't cut it with me. The
stats don't break out "baskets" and count made field goals under this
heading and made free throws in another heading. The stats show FTs
and FGs, not Baskets and Non-Baskets. (Extended stats may show
attempts vs completions for both free throws and field goals). Both
the made free throw and the made field goal are baskets, but the stats
identify how the basket was made.
Using the theory that a made free throw is not a basket, then the made
free throw should have no point value.
Evan Kirshenbaum
What makes them "made" is that they are successful attempts.
> Using the stats to make your point just doesn't cut it with me. The
> stats don't break out "baskets" and count made field goals under
> this heading and made free throws in another heading. The stats
> show FTs and FGs, not Baskets and Non-Baskets. (Extended stats may
> show attempts vs completions for both free throws and field goals).
> Both the made free throw and the made field goal are baskets, but
> the stats identify how the basket was made.
>
> Using the theory that a made free throw is not a basket, then the made
> free throw should have no point value.
Only if you assume that the only things that score points are
"baskets". When I was growing up there were two ways to score:
baskets were worth two points; free throws were worth one. Just like
in football a field goal isn't a touchdown, even though they both
score points.
I'll note that MWCD appears to agree with me. It's sense 3b for
"basket" is "a field goal in basketball".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If you think health care is
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |expensive now, wait until you see
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |what it costs when it's free.
| P.J. O'Rourke
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
tony cooper
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
Successful attempts to put the ball in the basket. Baskets.
>
>> Using the stats to make your point just doesn't cut it with me. The
>> stats don't break out "baskets" and count made field goals under
>> this heading and made free throws in another heading. The stats
>> show FTs and FGs, not Baskets and Non-Baskets. (Extended stats may
>> show attempts vs completions for both free throws and field goals).
>> Both the made free throw and the made field goal are baskets, but
>> the stats identify how the basket was made.
>>
>> Using the theory that a made free throw is not a basket, then the made
>> free throw should have no point value.
>
>Only if you assume that the only things that score points are
>"baskets".
I do assume that. If the ball doesn't go in the basket, no point is
scored.
> When I was growing up there were two ways to score:
>baskets were worth two points; free throws were worth one. Just like
>in football a field goal isn't a touchdown, even though they both
>score points.
>
>I'll note that MWCD appears to agree with me. It's sense 3b for
>"basket" is "a field goal in basketball".
Dueling dictionary definitions. From dictionary.com
7.
Basket
a.
an open net suspended from a metal rim attached to the backboard and
through which the ball must pass in order for a player to score
points.
b.
a score, counting two for a field goal and one for a free throw.
Obviously, this needs updating because it doesn't cover the 3-point
basket.
Evan Kirshenbaum
But "going in the basket" isn't sufficient for something to be a
basket even for you, I'd presume. Say if the shooter traveled or if
time expired. (Or, positing your definition, if there was a lane
violation.)
>> When I was growing up there were two ways to score:
>>baskets were worth two points; free throws were worth one. Just like
>>in football a field goal isn't a touchdown, even though they both
>>score points.
>>
>>I'll note that MWCD appears to agree with me. It's sense 3b for
>>"basket" is "a field goal in basketball".
>
> Dueling dictionary definitions. From dictionary.com
>
> 7.
> Basket
> a.
> an open net suspended from a metal rim attached to the backboard and
> through which the ball must pass in order for a player to score
> points.
> b.
> a score, counting two for a field goal and one for a free throw.
>
> Obviously, this needs updating because it doesn't cover the 3-point
> basket.
You'll note that I didn't say that you were wrong. I merely noted
surprise at your usage. Obviously there is variation that I had not
been previously aware of. It literally would not occur to me to say
that somebody had made six baskets if they scored nine points, three
of them on free throws.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There is something fascinating
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |about science. One gets such
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |wholesale returns of conjecture out
|of such a trifling investment of
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |fact.
(650)857-7572 | Mark Twain
tony cooper
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 09:01:27 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>
>>>tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 07:54:46 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>>>> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>>>
>> I do assume that. If the ball doesn't go in the basket, no point is
>> scored.
>
>But "going in the basket" isn't sufficient for something to be a
>basket even for you, I'd presume. Say if the shooter traveled or if
>time expired. (Or, positing your definition, if there was a lane
>violation.)
My statement did not say that the ball going into the basket is the
only requirement for a score. It didn't touch on other requirements
like the lack of foul being committed in the process of shooting.
What I said, essentially, is if the ball does not go into the basket
no point is scored.
>>>I'll note that MWCD appears to agree with me. It's sense 3b for
>>>"basket" is "a field goal in basketball".
>>
>> Dueling dictionary definitions. From dictionary.com
>>
>> 7.
>> Basket
>> a.
>> an open net suspended from a metal rim attached to the backboard and
>> through which the ball must pass in order for a player to score
>> points.
>> b.
>> a score, counting two for a field goal and one for a free throw.
>>
>> Obviously, this needs updating because it doesn't cover the 3-point
>> basket.
Also, M-W shows this as a definition of a field goal:
Main Entry: field goal
Function: noun
Date: 1902
1 : a score of three points in football made by drop-kicking or
place-kicking the ball over the crossbar from ordinary play
2 : a goal in basketball made while the ball is in play
Running with that one, you can make a case for M-W considering a free
throw to be a field goal because it is not excluded. Or are you
saying that a made free throw is not a goal?
I wouldn't make either case, but this shows that there are some areas
where dictionary definitions are not sufficient to settle an argument.
>
>You'll note that I didn't say that you were wrong. I merely noted
>surprise at your usage. Obviously there is variation that I had not
>been previously aware of. It literally would not occur to me to say
>that somebody had made six baskets if they scored nine points, three
>of them on free throws.
Nor would it occur to me to say "Jones didn't make a basket in the
game, but his 6 points helped put the Hoopsters in the 'W' column."
when recounting that Jones contributed 6 made free throws.
Skitt
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>> I do assume that. If the ball doesn't go in the basket, no point is
>>> scored.
See below.
>> But "going in the basket" isn't sufficient for something to be a
>> basket even for you, I'd presume. Say if the shooter traveled or if
>> time expired. (Or, positing your definition, if there was a lane
>> violation.)
>
> My statement did not say that the ball going into the basket is the
> only requirement for a score. It didn't touch on other requirements
> like the lack of foul being committed in the process of shooting.
> What I said, essentially, is if the ball does not go into the basket
> no point is scored.
You forgot goaltending. It's never easy to pin things down.
--
Skitt (AmE)
http://come.to/skitt
Mark Brader
> > Huh? This thread started with "unanswered goals", not "unanswered points".
> > What did you imagine they were talking about if not hockey?
Peter Nielsen:
> I found it used for several sports including soccer, field hockey, lacrosse.
> When I originally saw it the subject was handball.
I'm sure. To make it explicit, I was suggesting jocularly that nobody
would possibly ever watch those sports.
--
Mark Brader "We demand rigidly defined areas
Toronto of doubt and uncertainty!"
m...@vex.net -- Vroomfondel (Douglas Adams: HHGTTG)
Rich Ulrich
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 09:44:46 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
><kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
>>tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 09:01:27 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>>> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
[snip, much]
>
>Also, M-W shows this as a definition of a field goal:
>
>Main Entry: field goal
>Function: noun
>Date: 1902
>
>1 : a score of three points in football made by drop-kicking or
>place-kicking the ball over the crossbar from ordinary play
>2 : a goal in basketball made while the ball is in play
>
>Running with that one, you can make a case for M-W considering a free
>throw to be a field goal because it is not excluded. Or are you
>saying that a made free throw is not a goal?
>
>I wouldn't make either case, but this shows that there are some areas
>where dictionary definitions are not sufficient to settle an argument.
>
It seems to me that you are mis-reading this definition.
There is a distinction between a goal made "while the
ball is in play" and - the converse - a free throw.
The ball is not in play just prior to a free throw. The
clock starts again after a miss, or after the in-bound play.
So I'd say that M-W agrees with the interpretation
- which is what feels natural to me, too - that a free
throw is not included as a "basket."
I suppose my own opinion would signify more if I was ever
an athlete in the sport. I was never a competitor, but I was
a team manager in high school for 4 years (JV, then varsity).
I still follow the sport in the sports pages and on TV.
[snip, rest]
--
Rich Ulrich
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 09:44:46 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
> Also, M-W shows this as a definition of a field goal:
>
> Main Entry: field goal
> Function: noun
> Date: 1902
>
> 1 : a score of three points in football made by drop-kicking or
> place-kicking the ball over the crossbar from ordinary play
> 2 : a goal in basketball made while the ball is in play
>
> Running with that one, you can make a case for M-W considering a free
> throw to be a field goal because it is not excluded. Or are you
> saying that a made free throw is not a goal?
I read "while the ball is in play" as specifically excluding free
throws, which are attempted during dead-ball situations. If they
meant to include all ways of scoring by putting the ball in the
basket, they could simply have said "a goal in basketball".
> I wouldn't make either case, but this shows that there are some areas
> where dictionary definitions are not sufficient to settle an argument.
>
>>
>>You'll note that I didn't say that you were wrong. I merely noted
>>surprise at your usage. Obviously there is variation that I had not
>>been previously aware of. It literally would not occur to me to say
>>that somebody had made six baskets if they scored nine points, three
>>of them on free throws.
>
> Nor would it occur to me to say "Jones didn't make a basket in the
> game, but his 6 points helped put the Hoopsters in the 'W' column."
> when recounting that Jones contributed 6 made free throws.
Whereas that would sound perfectly natural to me.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Voting in the House of
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Representatives is done by means of a
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |little plastic card with a magnetic
|strip on the back--like a VISA card,
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |but with no, that is, absolutely
(650)857-7572 |*no*, spending limit.
| P.J. O'Rourke
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:17:45 -0400, tony cooper
> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Also, M-W shows this as a definition of a field goal:
>>
>>Main Entry: field goal
>>Function: noun
>>Date: 1902
>>
>>1 : a score of three points in football made by drop-kicking or
>>place-kicking the ball over the crossbar from ordinary play
>>2 : a goal in basketball made while the ball is in play
>>
>>Running with that one, you can make a case for M-W considering a
>>free throw to be a field goal because it is not excluded. Or are
>>you saying that a made free throw is not a goal?
>>
>>I wouldn't make either case, but this shows that there are some areas
>>where dictionary definitions are not sufficient to settle an argument.
>>
>
> It seems to me that you are mis-reading this definition. There is a
> distinction between a goal made "while the ball is in play" and -
> the converse - a free throw.
>
> The ball is not in play just prior to a free throw.
Interestingly, according to current NCAA rules, that appears to not be
the case:
Rule 8.2 After allowing reasonable time for players to take their
positions, the official shall put the ball in play by
placing it at the disposal of the free-thrower.
The clock doesn't start, but it appears that the ball is, in fact,
technically "in play". But I'm essentially certain that that was,
indeed, the distinction the dictionary entry writer meant to convey.
> The clock starts again after a miss, or after the in-bound play. So
> I'd say that M-W agrees with the interpretation - which is what
> feels natural to me, too - that a free throw is not included as a
> "basket."
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |This gubblick contains many
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |nonsklarkish English flutzpahs, but
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |the overall pluggandisp can be
|glorked from context.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |
(650)857-7572 | David Moser
Garrett Wollman
Peter Duncanson (BrE) <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>It seems to be North American sporting terminology.
I don't think so -- at least not exclusively. I've certainly heard
the BBCWS sports-score-readers say it, however, and none of them sound
(North) American. Unfortunately there's no evidence in the OED as
they haven't gotten around to revising that bit yet.
It does seem a bit odd in the soccer context; it seems more natural in
sports where the competitors take turns on offense (tennis, baseball,
football) rather than simultaneous offense-defense sports (hockey,
soccer, basketball).
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>In article <1d8pr55d9rk4rok5i...@4ax.com>,
>Peter Duncanson (BrE) <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>>It seems to be North American sporting terminology.
>
>I don't think so -- at least not exclusively. I've certainly heard
>the BBCWS sports-score-readers say it, however, and none of them sound
>(North) American. Unfortunately there's no evidence in the OED as
>they haven't gotten around to revising that bit yet.
>
The BBCWS consciously addresses an international audience. The language
used will avoid weird Briticisms and may well include words and phrases
that are used internationally even if not in BrE.
>It does seem a bit odd in the soccer context; it seems more natural in
>sports where the competitors take turns on offense (tennis, baseball,
>football) rather than simultaneous offense-defense sports (hockey,
>soccer, basketball).
>
>-GAWollman
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)