Why does anyone who talks about football...

T

Trug

Well-known member
...speak in the present tense as if the game is still being played when the game has long since finished.
"...the ball comes from the left and Chuba puts it past the keeper for the first goal"
"...the ball is bouncing in front of him and he has to get has to get there first..."
Or even if a game has not yet started
"Coburn starts v Preston on Tuesday"
Anyway- if that's all I've got to moan about I'm a lucky man.
 
The one that gets me is when referring to the goalie, they now say “in goals”. It was always so and so “in goal” when I was a lad
 
  • Like
Reactions: B_G
Kevo4 said:
The one that gets me is when referring to the goalie, they now say “in goals”. It was always so and so “in goal” when I was a lad
Click to expand...
I suppose the keeper will be stood in both goals unless they get subbed or injured so it does sort of make sense. Sounds rubbish though.

To be honest as long as nobody uses the phrase tekkers, top bins or limbs then I am happy, oh and the major one, premiership.
 
Kevo4 said:
The one that gets me is when referring to the goalie, they now say “in goals”. It was always so and so “in goal” when I was a lad
Click to expand...
"In goals" irritates me but not half as much as when someone says "in nets".

First heard "in nets" in Australia but I have since heard the term in the UK also.
 
Trug said:
...speak in the present tense as if the game is still being played when the game has long since finished.
"...the ball comes from the left and Chuba puts it past the keeper for the first goal"
"...the ball is bouncing in front of him and he has to get has to get there first..."
Or even if a game has not yet started
"Coburn starts v Preston on Tuesday"
Anyway- if that's all I've got to moan about I'm a lucky man.
Click to expand...
I once raised this on here, myself. Got told to chill out etc. It grinds my gears though.

But I agree with you. They do it in boxing too. "Fury beats Joshua comfortably" etc. instead of "Fury will beat Joshua comfortably."
 
A surprisingly large number of former players say ‘done’ instead of ‘did’ when commentating or punditing.

“He done well to get a shot on target.”

“I done it all the time.”

The main culprits are Alan Shearer, Danny Murphy, Joe Cole and Frank Lampard, but loads of them do it.
 
"Player of the match" really gets me. Why change it in a men's football game, just because we now show women's football. Probably a whole separate thread for this one though.
 
I hate it when people say sat instead of sitting as in “we were sat on a bench” and yes the old favourite stood as in “he was just stood there” rather than standing there.

That really winds me up.
 
EI_Owen said:
I hate it when people say sat instead of sitting as in “we were sat on a bench” and yes the old favourite stood as in “he was just stood there” rather than standing there.

That really winds me up.
Click to expand...
Why would stood wind you up when it's grammatically correct to use it in that way?
 
EI_Owen said:
I hate it when people say sat instead of sitting as in “we were sat on a bench” and yes the old favourite stood as in “he was just stood there” rather than standing there.

That really winds me up.
Click to expand...
Also struggling to find a reason for finding ire in the context "sat" is used in that sentence. 🤔
 
More recent idioms; "get them in the building" (thanks C. Wilder), "get them back in the group", or simply "the group" & "the football club" (rather you just called the club by its actual name please).
 
Aztec chimera said:
Also struggling to find a reason for finding ire in the context "sat" is used in that sentence. 🤔
Click to expand...
They are both examples of bad grammar.

It is correct to say, “I was stood at the bus stop” — but only if someone picked you up physically, walked you to the bus stop, placed you down and stood you there.

It is fine to say, “We were sat at the table in the restaurant” — but only if the waiter walked you over to the table, and indicated that you should sit there.

These are both completed actions, in the past tense. If you are describing past continuous actions then you need standing, and you need sitting.
 
EI_Owen said:
They are both examples of bad grammar.

It is correct to say, “I was stood at the bus stop” — but only if someone picked you up physically, walked you to the bus stop, placed you down and stood you there.

It is fine to say, “We were sat at the table in the restaurant” — but only if the waiter walked you over to the table, and indicated that you should sit there.

These are both completed actions, in the past tense. If you are describing past continuous actions then you need standing, and you need sitting.
Click to expand...
I think you're looking into it too much mate. Language is an evolving thing and those two examples are the least of the problems. You'll drive yourself insane if you let things like that annoy you.
 
EI_Owen said:
It is fine to say, “We were sat at the table in the restaurant” — but only if the waiter walked you over to the table, and indicated that you should sit there.
Click to expand...
Doesn't the waiter seat you at your table even if he guides you there on foot?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top