Footy Grammar update - bias, shot on goals, etc etc

Remove this Banner Ad

Just a note that should one display bias, then as a consequence they are said to be biased.

They are not "bias".

To quote Terry Wallace, "I'll spew" if I read the sentence "I am bias" again.

Cheers all
gold-star-elegant-260nw-238637683.jpg
 

Log in to remove this ad.

One that gives the the screamers is people saying "the proof is in the pudding." This makes absolutely no sense!

The actual saying is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating." Now this does make sense, in that no matter how good something looks, until you taste it you can't be sure.
 
Interestingly, using the word ‘on’ instead of ‘at’ is a little less black and white than most think.

In modern english, the phrase ‘firing on a target’ stems from artillery bombardment - where the shells arc through the air and land ON the target - Mortars are the most extreme example if this - although the term is used in both the Artillery and Naval bombardment context.

Weaponry that has a more direct trajectory - such as small arms, anti tank guns, self propelled rockets etc....are fired AT a target.

Arrows can be launched AT a close target, or ‘on’ a Castle or battlement.

The point - Firing or shooting ‘on goal’ is a poor application of the phrase - but could reasonably be used if the kick is a 60 metre torp with a big arcing trajectory.(Think Blight’ torp at optus oval)

However, using it to desribe a 30 metre drop punt is somewhat ridiculous and displays a failure to understand how the term ‘firing ON a target’ came about.
 
Just on versing, is there support for the view that the language is forever evolving and if it's in common usage, then it is legitimate?
Yep, but not for versing unless it's used in the context of poetry; and even then dubious. "Yep", on the other hand, is totally legit. As is "legit".
 
So if we further extrapolate this into goal kicking philosophies does this mean that a footballer who employs the kicking up type
technique is actually having a shot on goal in total contrast to a Peter Hudson who used the flat punt technique who could be
judged as having a shot at goal. Furthermore is there a point at which Peter Hudson would vary his technique because of the
distance requirement and be judged as shooting on goal rather than at goal. Don't start me on the players who pick out a spot
in the crowd or in the distance and focus totally on that spot rather than the goals because technically they are neither shooting
on or at the goals.

Don't eat too much cheese !
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Just a note that should one display bias, then as a consequence they are said to be biased.

They are not "bias".

To quote Terry Wallace, "I'll spew" if I read the sentence "I am bias" again.

Cheers all
Mate, you’re named after a spreadsheet, and you still got it wrong.
 
Ah "versing"
The other scourge of modern discourse

"Sometimes you can get a bit complacent when you know you're versing younger boys."

- Jazz Tevaga, NZ Warriors this year


"You might make some mates along the way, but to be honest you're versing them most of the time."

- Tex Hoy, Newcastle Knights this year
 
"Sometimes you can get a bit complacent when you know you're versing younger boys."

- Jazz Tevaga, NZ Warriors this year


"You might make some mates along the way, but to be honest you're versing them most of the time."

- Tex Hoy, Newcastle Knights this year
I've noticed young people regularly using versing.
 
My pet peeve is "inference" or "infer" being used in place of "implication" or "imply", and I've seen people claim that the meaning of inference has changed and now it means implication. This is despite them having completely different meanings. A lot of football journalists make the same mistake. It's what happens when somebody uses a word to sound educated but they actually have no idea what it means. Credit to Mark Stevens - when I pointed it out to him, he took it on the chin and said, "yes, you're right".
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top