upfield/downfield

[arthu...@gmail.com]

I think these terms are used interchangeably in American football.
Is that correct?

Are they used in any other sport? (Soccer, for instance?)
What do they mean in those sports?

Gratefully,
Navi.

[Harrison Hill]

If you kick the ball "up the field" or "down the field" in either
of the codes of Football, you kick it away from your own goal, and
into your opponent's half. There is no "upfield" or "downfield".

In cricket there is an "infield" and an "outfield". "Fielders"
prowl these areas, trying to catch, or stop and return - "field" -
the ball.

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 23:42:49 -0700 (PDT), arthu...@gmail.com wrote:

>I think these terms are used interchangeably in American football.
>Is that correct?

No. They are not interchangeable. Upfield is the part of the field
away from the defending team's goal line. Downfield is the part of
field past the line of scrimmage that is closer to the defending
team's goal line.

When the quarterback is tackled behind the line of scrimmage, he is
tackled upfield. On that play, a player may have run downfield
(towards the opponent's goal) expecting the quarterback to pass the
ball to him.

The word "upfield" is used in sports commentary, but not often. That
quarterback tackled behind the line of scrimmage was "sacked", and
"sacked" means he was stopped upfield. "Downfield" is used quite a
bit because players are routed downfield in many play calls.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Jerry Friedman]

Sad to say, Google finds many examples where "upfield" is used to mean
"downfield".

"An eligible receiver runs a predetermined number of steps or yards
upfield before stopping and turning back in slightly to face the
Quarterback..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football_plays


"Learn some great tips on how to block upfield after a catch as a
receiver in this free video clip..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6asSg5KEDQ


"Barry Sanders Runs in Traffic Upfield 8x10 Color Photo Detroit Lions
Football"

"Barry Sanders Breaks Loose Upfield 8x10 Color Photo Detroit Lions
Football"

Both from eBay.


"James Rodgers takes the football upfield against Oregon Thursday night
at Autzen Stadium in Eugene, Oregon."

Getty images (dead link)


"Stevan Ridley #35 of the Indianapolis Colts runs the football upfield
against Will Clarke #93 of the Cincinnati Bengals..."

http://www.espn.com/nfl/team/photos/_/name/ind
but the picture's not there any more

Those are from the first two pages of hits. I saw only two uses, as
opposed to definitions, where "upfield" was used to mean the opposite of
"downfield" (and one of them I wasn't sure about).

--
Jerry Friedman
"No Trump" bridge-themed political shirts: cafepress.com/jerrysdesigns
Bumper stickers ditto: cafepress/jerrysstickers

[Don Phillipson]

>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 23:42:49 -0700 (PDT), arthu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> I think these terms are used interchangeably in American football.
>>> Is that correct?

> On 9/27/16 8:15 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:

>> No. They are not interchangeable. Upfield is the part of the field
>> away from the defending team's goal line. Downfield is the part of
>> field past the line of scrimmage that is closer to the defending
>> team's goal line.

"Jerry Friedman" <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nse189$jf9$1...@news.albasani.net...

> Sad to say, Google finds many examples where "upfield" is used to mean
> "downfield".

This may reflect a peculiarity of the rules of American football,
which establish that at every moment (?) one team has "possession"
of the ball (and the right to attack) and the other does not. This
seems an anomaly in team ball games, i.e. not found in soccer
or rugby. By contrast, "right of way" (clearance to attack)
characteristizes fencing (with foil or sabre but not epee): but
this is an individual contest, not a team game. Taking turns
is normal in most sports and games but "possession" may
be special to American football.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Jerry Friedman]

On 9/27/16 9:06 AM, Don Phillipson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 23:42:49 -0700 (PDT), arthu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think these terms are used interchangeably in American football.
>>>> Is that correct?
>
>> On 9/27/16 8:15 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>> No. They are not interchangeable. Upfield is the part of the field
>>> away from the defending team's goal line. Downfield is the part of
>>> field past the line of scrimmage that is closer to the defending
>>> team's goal line.
>
> "Jerry Friedman" <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:nse189$jf9$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> Sad to say, Google finds many examples where "upfield" is used to mean
>> "downfield".
>
> This may reflect a peculiarity of the rules of American football,
> which establish that at every moment (?)

Except during a fumble and a kickoff, at least an onside kick. While
the ball is in the air during a pass, it's up for grabs, but there are
some differences between what the offense and defense are allowed to do,
such as "ineligible receiver downfield", as well as the rule that if the
pass isn't caught, the offense retains possession (except on fourth down).

> one team has "possession"
> of the ball (and the right to attack) and the other does not.

I don't think that's the reason. All the examples I quoted were from
the point of view of the offense.

> This
> seems an anomaly in team ball games, i.e. not found in soccer
> or rugby. By contrast, "right of way" (clearance to attack)
> characteristizes fencing (with foil or sabre but not epee):

As I remember from watching fencing matches, it's called "tempo" in saber.

> but
> this is an individual contest, not a team game. Taking turns
> is normal in most sports and games but "possession" may
> be special to American football.

The distinction is not individual versus team, as in baseball, cricket,
volleyball, and many other team ball games, the roles of the two teams
aren't subject to change at any moment the way they are in soccer.
However, soccer and rugby and other football games are part of a big
class of games where the object is to get the ball or puck to the other
team's goal--basketball, polo, all kinds of hockey, etc.--and I agree
that American and Canadian football are anomalous in that class because
play stops frequently and one team has possession of the ball at the
start of every play.

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 08:55:01 -0600, Jerry Friedman
<jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 9/27/16 8:15 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 23:42:49 -0700 (PDT), arthu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> I think these terms are used interchangeably in American football.
>>> Is that correct?
>>
>> No. They are not interchangeable. Upfield is the part of the field
>> away from the defending team's goal line. Downfield is the part of
>> field past the line of scrimmage that is closer to the defending
>> team's goal line.
>>
>> When the quarterback is tackled behind the line of scrimmage, he is
>> tackled upfield. On that play, a player may have run downfield
>> (towards the opponent's goal) expecting the quarterback to pass the
>> ball to him.
>>
>> The word "upfield" is used in sports commentary, but not often. That
>> quarterback tackled behind the line of scrimmage was "sacked", and
>> "sacked" means he was stopped upfield. "Downfield" is used quite a
>> bit because players are routed downfield in many play calls.
>
>Sad to say, Google finds many examples where "upfield" is used to mean
>"downfield".

Time, again, to link to that cartoon of someone saying "There's a
mistake on the Internet!"

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 11:11:28 AM UTC-4, Don Phillipson wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 23:42:49 -0700 (PDT), arthu...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think these terms are used interchangeably in American football.
> >>> Is that correct?
>
> > On 9/27/16 8:15 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
> >> No. They are not interchangeable. Upfield is the part of the field
> >> away from the defending team's goal line. Downfield is the part of
> >> field past the line of scrimmage that is closer to the defending
> >> team's goal line.
>
> "Jerry Friedman" <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:nse189$jf9$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
> > Sad to say, Google finds many examples where "upfield" is used to mean
> > "downfield".
>
> This may reflect a peculiarity of the rules of American football,
> which establish that at every moment (?) one team has "possession"
> of the ball (and the right to attack) and the other does not. This
> seems an anomaly in team ball games, i.e. not found in soccer
> or rugby.

Don't they have baseball in Carlsbad Springs, Ottawa, Canada?

[Jerry Friedman]

Very self-referential of you to misquote it. ("Someone is _wrong_ on
the Internet.")

Navi asked about usage, not correctness, and I'm afraid the inconsistent
uses on the Net (including a photo caption at espn.com) reflect
inconsistent usage in the rest of reality. However, if you tell me
that sportscasters and /Sports Illustrated/ writers consistently use
"upfield" as the opposite of "downfield", I can't dispute it.

--
Jerry Friedman
Howe

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

This how I would understand it in BrE:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/upfield

upfield
adverb

1 (in sport) in or to a position nearer to the opponents' end of a
field.

This says:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/downfield

downfield
adverb

1 North American
another term for upfield

I wouldn't expect to meet "downfield" in a Brit sport context.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[snide...@gmail.com]

There also is a [recent?] usage of "playing downhill", apparently meaning
that the team in question has the advantage in the situation.
I don't think I've heard it except in the context of AmFoot,
but my sampling is inconsistent.
(and I missed the last radio baseball broadcast by Vin Scully)
(unless he pops back in for the post-season,
but it doesn't sound like he will)

/dps

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:40:27 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman

What, then, does "I think these terms are used interchangeably in
American football. Is that correct?" mean unless it's a question about
correctness? It's not a question about the correctness of a specific
usage, but a question about the correctness of using the two
interchangeably.

>and I'm afraid the inconsistent
>uses on the Net (including a photo caption at espn.com) reflect
>inconsistent usage in the rest of reality. However, if you tell me
>that sportscasters and /Sports Illustrated/ writers consistently use
>"upfield" as the opposite of "downfield", I can't dispute it.

I can't really do that because "upfield" is not seen/heard very often.
Rarely, even. To know if it's consistently used to mean anything, it
would have to frequently used. "Downfield", though, is used
frequently.

As far as your quote: "Stevan Ridley #35 of the Indianapolis Colts

runs the football upfield against Will Clarke #93 of the Cincinnati
Bengals..."

The image is still available:
http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/sports/projecting-bengals-53-man-roster-practice-squad/nsQmr/
The wording is a photo caption, and who knows who writes the photo
captions for Dayton Daily News. Is a caption writer necessarily
knowledgeable about football? All he or she has to do is get the
jersey number associated with the right player.

The image is gone from wherever you saw it maybe because Ridley was
signed by the Colts on August 23, played in one exhibition game, and
was released by the Cold on September 3rd. He's no longer a Colt.

Besides...is this a contradiction? If Ridley was behind the line of
scrimmage, he's upfield. He's not downfield until he crosses the line
of scrimmage. The play for a running back always starts upfield, and
often ends upfield.

[Jerry Friedman]

Ah, you took it as "Is using the terms interchangeably correct?" I
took it as "Is my previous sentence correct?" (If anyone wants to be
pedantic, I took it as "Is my thought expressed in the previous sentence correct?")

> >and I'm afraid the inconsistent
> >uses on the Net (including a photo caption at espn.com) reflect
> >inconsistent usage in the rest of reality. However, if you tell me
> >that sportscasters and /Sports Illustrated/ writers consistently use
> >"upfield" as the opposite of "downfield", I can't dispute it.
>
> I can't really do that because "upfield" is not seen/heard very often.
> Rarely, even. To know if it's consistently used to mean anything, it
> would have to frequently used.

No, if it's used the same way 100% of the few times it's used, that's
consistent.

> "Downfield", though, is used frequently.
>
> As far as your quote: "Stevan Ridley #35 of the Indianapolis Colts
> runs the football upfield against Will Clarke #93 of the Cincinnati
> Bengals..."
>
> The image is still available:
> http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/sports/projecting-bengals-53-man-roster-practice-squad/nsQmr/
> The wording is a photo caption, and who knows who writes the photo
> captions for Dayton Daily News. Is a caption writer necessarily
> knowledgeable about football? All he or she has to do is get the
> jersey number associated with the right player.
>
> The image is gone from wherever you saw it

I didn't see it. Google found it at espn.com, but the picture wasn't
at the linked site.

I would hope that espn.com, if not the Dayton Daily News, would be careful
about sports terminology.

> maybe because Ridley was
> signed by the Colts on August 23, played in one exhibition game, and
> was released by the Cold on September 3rd. He's no longer a Colt.
>
> Besides...is this a contradiction? If Ridley was behind the line of
> scrimmage, he's upfield. He's not downfield until he crosses the line
> of scrimmage. The play for a running back always starts upfield, and
> often ends upfield.

...

All the pictures of runners at the Dayton Daily News article say
the guy is running upfield. They don't all look as if he's behind
the line of scrimmage. Also, based on my limited recent experience, I'd
expect "in the backfield" rather than "upfield" for that.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:35:00 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman

I really don't see a small number of web-found instances establish
consistency of usage. It's like finding "the" spelled "teh" a number
of times and deciding that "teh" is a consistent variant spelling.

Describing a running back as running the ball upfield is not something
that I would notice in the calling of game, but if the usage is
brought to my attention it seems wrong. Unless, of course, it's a
call of Roy Riegels running the ball upfield for Cal in the 1929 Rose
Bowl, and I wasn't around to hear that.

>I didn't see it. Google found it at espn.com, but the picture wasn't
>at the linked site.
>
>I would hope that espn.com, if not the Dayton Daily News, would be careful
>about sports terminology.

Checking further, I see that the photograph is a Getty Image taken by
John Grieshop. Getty is a stock photograph agency, so this is an image
that John took but anyone can buy from Getty. John also shoots for
Sports Illustrated, but he's free-lancing when he sells through Getty.
(Identified as a "stringer" here) This photo can be purchased for
$575, but the Dayton Daily News probably has a contract with Getty and
gets a better deal.

http://www.gettyimages.com/license/598581958

>All the pictures of runners at the Dayton Daily News article say
>the guy is running upfield. They don't all look as if he's behind
>the line of scrimmage. Also, based on my limited recent experience, I'd
>expect "in the backfield" rather than "upfield" for that.

All of the photographs are by Grieshop/Getty. Grieshop evidently has
a stock phrase to describe a photograph of a ball carrier that he uses
in the submission template. (I use Adobe Lightroom, and Lightroom has
an upload feature to Getty, and there's a submission template that is
included with photo in each upload)

A photographer like Grieshop will take a few hundred shots of a game
and cull them down to a select number of the better shots to submit. I
doubt if he remembers where on the field the players were when each
was taken unless it's a photograph where the action was particularly
memorable...a tackle near the goal line after a punt reception, for
example.

When looking through the viewfinder of a camera, the view is pretty
restricted and the normal way is shooting continuous frames so the
best photograph could be one from a series where the runner was
photographed several times spanning several yards. Sports photography
is all about anticipating where the shot will be, pointing the lens
that way, and tripping the shutter in continuous mode of several
frames per second as the play progresses.

I do this every Saturday now that it's football season for my
grandsons.

[Snidely]

When my daughters were doing jumps (on hunters, not jumpers),
they took me to task for always getting a photograph when they
were on the way down.

("toes to the nose" is used in that sport, too)

/dps

--
"That's a good sort of hectic, innit?"

" Very much so, and I'd recommend the haggis wontons."
-njm

[Mark Brader]

"Navi":
>> Subject: upfield/downfield

>> I think these terms are used interchangeably in American football.
>> Is that correct?

Tony Cooper:

> No. They are not interchangeable. Upfield is the part of the field
> away from the defending team's goal line. Downfield is the part of
> field past the line of scrimmage that is closer to the defending
> team's goal line.

I'm not familiar with "upfield" having *any* meaning in football.
In my experience "downfield" exists on its own.

> The word "upfield" is used in sports commentary, but not often.

I can believe that.

> That quarterback tackled behind the line of scrimmage was "sacked",
> and "sacked" means he was stopped upfield.

I would have said he was stopped "in the backfield". In relation to
the team on offense, directions like "back" or "behind" indicate the
opposite direction to "downfield", and "the backfield" is the area

behind the line of scrimmage.

Unlike Tony, of course, when I say "football" I'm referring to Canadian
football. I don't follow it very closely at all, and I watch American
football even less. So my unfamiliarity with a term doesn't mean that
it isn't used, and even less so in American football.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "The singular of 'data' is not 'anecdote.'"
m...@vex.net | -- Jeff Goldberg

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 2:46:52 AM UTC-4, Snidely wrote:

> When my daughters were doing jumps (on hunters, not jumpers),
> they took me to task for always getting a photograph when they
> were on the way down.
>
> ("toes to the nose" is used in that sport, too)

What, what, and what??

[Jerry Friedman]

On 9/27/16 11:56 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:35:00 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
> <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 1:46:51 PM UTC-6, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:40:27 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
>>> <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:

...

>>>> I'm afraid the inconsistent
>>>> uses on the Net (including a photo caption at espn.com) reflect
>>>> inconsistent usage in the rest of reality. However, if you tell me
>>>> that sportscasters and /Sports Illustrated/ writers consistently use
>>>> "upfield" as the opposite of "downfield", I can't dispute it.
>>>
>>> I can't really do that because "upfield" is not seen/heard very often.
>>> Rarely, even. To know if it's consistently used to mean anything, it
>>> would have to frequently used.
>>
>> No, if it's used the same way 100% of the few times it's used, that's
>> consistent.
>
> I really don't see a small number of web-found instances establish
> consistency of usage.

When I brought up the instances on the Web, I was trying to establish
inconsistency.

Anyway, in the current discussion I was asking you about sportscasters
and /SI/ writers, not using my examples any more. And /anyway/, I was
disagreeing with your statement, "To know if it's consistently used
to mean anything, it would have to [be] frequently used." No, a rare
word can be used consistently.

> It's like finding "the" spelled "teh" a number
> of times and deciding that "teh" is a consistent variant spelling.

It's almost entirely unlike that.

> Describing a running back as running the ball upfield is not something
> that I would notice in the calling of game, but if the usage is
> brought to my attention it seems wrong.

Okay. (Un)fortunately, I know of no searchable corpus of sportscasting.

> Unless, of course, it's a
> call of Roy Riegels running the ball upfield for Cal in the 1929 Rose
> Bowl, and I wasn't around to hear that.

*googles* You were around for Jim Marshall's wrong-way touchdown in
1965. This now gets complicated, as both of them were playing defense
and made their runs after recovering fumbles. Do "upfield" and
"downfield" switch during a play if there's a turnover? That's probably
one of the questions that Joe Fineman has described as not needing an
answer till the Messiah comes.

You're undoubtedly right about the captions, after your detective work.
So there's one sports photographer who consistently uses "upfield" with
the same meaning as "downfield". And espn.com doesn't check the captions.

> When looking through the viewfinder of a camera, the view is pretty
> restricted and the normal way is shooting continuous frames so the
> best photograph could be one from a series where the runner was
> photographed several times spanning several yards. Sports photography
> is all about anticipating where the shot will be, pointing the lens
> that way, and tripping the shutter in continuous mode of several
> frames per second as the play progresses.

I had some suspicions of that.

> I do this every Saturday now that it's football season for my
> grandsons.

--

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 23:46:46 -0700, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com>
wrote:

That's the anticipation thing. You start shooting before the horse
leaves the ground. The shutter finger is slower than the action.
If you wait until you see the scene the way you want it, it's too late
to photograph it.

>
>("toes to the nose" is used in that sport, too)
>

That expression is unknown to me. All of the subject in the frame?
All of the subject in focus?

It doesn't respond to Google. Google changes it to "Toes on the
Nose", and that gets quite a few hits for professional photographers.
I thought at first it was something about baby photography because
babies can (or almost can) touch their nose with their toes.

But, some are for wedding photographers. The opportunity to
photograph "Toes on the Nose" at a wedding conjures up some odd
images.

[Snidely]

Tony Cooper was thinking very hard :

Believe it or not, that was what I was trying to do.

>> ("toes to the nose" is used in that sport, too)
>>
> That expression is unknown to me. All of the subject in the frame?
> All of the subject in focus?

Think position. Of the horse.

> It doesn't respond to Google. Google changes it to "Toes on the
> Nose", and that gets quite a few hits for professional photographers.
> I thought at first it was something about baby photography because
> babies can (or almost can) touch their nose with their toes.
>
> But, some are for wedding photographers. The opportunity to
> photograph "Toes on the Nose" at a wedding conjures up some odd
> images.

Indeed. And I wouldn't normally consider wedding photography a sport,
even when it's exercise.

The other sport using "toes to the nose", the nose belongs to the
board.
/dps

--
"What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it?
Well hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the
springs."
(Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)