Commentators suggesting it is 'game on' when it is plainly not

[Total_Juddshanks]

This could probably just get rolled straight into the Dwayne Russell thread given he is the prime offender, but the above shits me to absolute tears.

You know the situation. Team up by 40 pts, 5 minutes to play, losing sides supporters have already buggered off to the pub and then the losing side get a cheap goal, and suddenly the Dwayne Russells, Brian Taylors and Brucey Macs of the world collectively wet their pants. "is it game on?!" "Is their time?!" "Their's life yet!" "One more would make it verrrrrrrry interesting."

No you cretins, it wouldn't. When a team is up by 6 goals with 5 minutes of clock time, the game is over. One more doesn't make it interesting, it makes a decent sized loss look slightly more respectable. There is not one bookie who would even give you odds on the losing team in that situation, and you would have to watch a million monkeys play a million games of football (possibly umpired by razor ray) before you would get a contrary result in that situation in modern footy. Stop insulting our intelligence.

 

[Brad Goodman]

The alternative:

"Despite that goal the game is already over, anybody who doesn't support the team currently in front should just change the channel now".

It is silly, but they don't really have an option there.

 

[ManWithNoName]

They're trying to keep viewers. Anyone can see that.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

Commentators often admit that half of their job is trying to keep the viewer interested.

BT did this on Teams when he was accused of favoritism towards Collingwood. Although it was all tongue-in-cheek, he admitted that he will emphasize the actions of the team that is trailing on the scoreboard.

I think Saint Nick was pumping up Melbourne's chances at half time during the Footscray game, and Cometti asked him if he sincerely thought Melbourne were in with a chance. Riewoldt dropped the facade and admitted that they had to keep the viewers interested, which gave Cometti a start.