On Saturday I was doing lots of stuff around the house and spent much of the day listening to the radio. As those who know me will no doubt testify, I often gain a perverse enjoyment from picking out errors and mistakes in other's use of language. During my hours of radio listening my ears were pricked by not one, not two, but THREE examples that allowed me to loudly guffaw and smugly mock those who innocently got a bit confused when speaking live to millions.
Incident #1
Radio 2: Marti Pellow was a guest on Jonathan Ross' show and he was plugging his new album. Apparently, the record has taken several years to come to 'fruitation'.
Incident #2
Radio 5: Cardiff manager and not a paedophile Dave Jones was interviewed before his team's game against Wolves. Cardiff are riding high at the top of the league, and according to Jones, "there is a real good feel factor" at the club. That's nice.
Incident #3:
Radio 5 again: If I were to include this as a regular feature on Tomboloablog, I expect that former Leeds manager and expert summariser Jimmy Armfield would be what I call a 'regular contributor' to the section (right, dad?). He was offering his informative views on the Bolton v Liverpool game and noted that an attacker was "harrowing" a defender into making a mistake.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Thanks 'bola, I enjoyed this post as it appealed to my...outer pedant.
could you also compile a list of retarded quiz answers from popular quiz shows? I think the new lottery quiz might offer some good pickings.
I get more frustrated by the fact that EVERYONE connected to football seems to use crap cliches all the time. Even newsreaders when talking about football.
I also have to bring up the issue that has been riling me for a many a year. Here it is. Commentators that use the phrase 'centre halves' are FUCKING RETARDS. Clearly the correct term is Centre Back or Centre defence. If we examine the phrase 'centre half', then we can assume that one word corresponds to the position on the 'x' axis and the other the 'y' axis. Hence, centre + half = the guy stood in the centre cicle, who is clearly playing in a central midfield position.
I thank you.
Blimey, can't share your rage on that one G. Hasn't it just been that they're called centre halves since football began?
Actually, thinking more about this, you're wrong. When the teams line up for kick-off, the centre halves aren't in the centre circle are they? They're nearer the 18 yard line, which is pretty much half way inside their own half. So they are, in fact, centre halves. You buffoon. Cheg on, you am a twart.
So why do the more educated commentators refer to the specific players we're referring to as "centre backs"? Also, there are "centre forwards". Tell me where a 'centre half' fits in with that - does it sound more like a "centre midfield"?
What are you talking about G? They can be referred to as both, obviously. Centre backs play at the back, in front of the goal, centre forwards play up front, generally in front of the other goal. The term 'centre half' is accurate too, for the reason I said before. I don't understand the problem!
You've just agreed with me about 'centre backs', claiming that it is accurate and describes where they are. So how can you also claim that the back is the same as half? Surely the 'half' is between the 'back' and the 'forward'?
You've been listening to Ron Atkinson and Mark 'merment' Lawrenson too much dear boy....
Bloody hell G. In my eyes, they are BOTH accurate - backs play at the back & half can be accurate because they're usually (roughly) half way between the goal line and the half-way line. So in that sense you can be a centre-half AND a centre-back. Christ, you'll be suggesting we pick up the ball and run with it next.
Using that logic, I guess therefore someone playing in central midfield can also therefore be a 'centre one third' if you take their position at the kick off, and a centre forward can also be a 'centre midfield' (if at kick off they are next to the circle), or, god-forbid, they could also be a 'centre half' for the same reason.
There you have it then, centre halves are both defenders and strikers. Fucking retarded classification system. No wonder footballers tend to be as thick as pigshit.
That's just stupid. I can't believe we're debating this so intensely...but I may as well continue. If my reasoning for centre half is correct then strikers couldn't be called centre halves as well could they? They're at the edge of their team's half, like a goalie is at the other side. Equally, they wouldn't ever be called centre midfield for 1 simple reason: they're not in midfield. My reasoning about the origin of 'centre half' might be wrong - I thought of it in about 1 minute - but it works for me.
From msn messnger:
Tom says:
help me out here with G - who do you agree with?
Akira says:
I just don't understand the argument
centre-half never really made sense to me
it always seemed more of a rugby thing
I agree that helf seems more like a midfielder
Tom says:
(rolls eyes)
Akira says:
centre back, centre half, centre forward sort of makes sense to me, but centre half seems to be what the old folks call centre backs so i'm not fussed
Tom says:
for god's sake don't agree with him
Akira says:
it doesn't upset me
Tom says:
me neither, i'd never given it a second thought til he brought it up
You have to decide what you are using as your frame of reference - the field as a whole, or just one half.
Considering the first part is easy as it refers to the position across the width of the field - right, centre, left, etc.
The second part actually shouldn't make any difference which frame of reference you're using, so long as you're consistant with it. Hence 'back' (defender) 'half' (midfield) and 'forward' (striker).
Ak's clearly a thinking man's footballer. Tom is clearly from across the Pennines.
With the rugby thing... from a league point of view at least, it's pretty easy. The scrum half and the stand off (our version of the poncey 'fly half') are the link between the forwards and the backs. Hence, half, again, refers to someone in the middle.
Wasn't this a post about linguistic wrongdoings?
Any more dead mice, Prof?
I think the best half is the first half. It always seems to go quicker. That is what you're falling out about, right?!
Btw I agree with the commentators using crap cliches all the time. The use of "irony" is rarely correct.
Gaz - why not tell us about your beef with 'cynical' fouls?
Hahahahaha good memory... Yes, it does piss me off. Perhaps Moon would agree. Also Moon, isn't the use of 'irony' always argued about? It's been argued about so much that I think I've lost track of what is the correct use of it, and so I don't use it.
Yes well we know that Alanis isn't the one to ask re: the definition of irony. I recall it being explained as "the component of weirdness in, like, a situation..." in My So-Called Life (remember that? I was very young at the time) however I would disagree with that particular definition. Still, whilst the intricacies can be debated, I have certainly heard it being used in a totally wrong sense by commentators! But I suppose that doesn't matter. They're only there to be shouted at anyway, aren't they?
Post a Comment