I'm tired of "unlucky"

Fair enough, and I've thought the same, but the thing is that the difference in execution between hitting a ball that hits the post or one that goes in is completely minimal, or even the same - the wind or any minor factor can change it. Perhaps the better term to use is 'close'.

 

It's part of the culture, that's why it's applied to many, many different situations.
Sort of a 'catch all" phrase when things don't go as planned.

 

Yeah it's just part of the culture.

Like if you try to get with a girl and you get denied that would be "unlucky".

 

A bigger issue I have with announcer is when they say "his shot beats the keeper, but doesn't make it into the net". The keepers job is to make it so the ball doesn't go into the net, so when a shot goes past the reach of the keeper, but doesn't go into the goal, the keeper's job is done and done well. He is not beaten at all if the ball is shot wide of the goal. He's not supposed to cover the area wide of the goal. The only time I will accept that a keeper is beaten when a goal is not scored is when an opposing player is able to dribble past the keeper before the shot at the goal (and that shot is missed). That's the only time when a keeper is beaten but a goal is not scored.

And don't get me started about how away goals "count as double". I hate explaining that to people who don't follow soccer. They'll think that a team that looses an away game 4-2 is actually tied (and that it's ridiculous that the away team has such an advantage). They're not! The only double that they are worth is that they count towards two different places - the total agragate and the tie breaker if the agragate ends tied, but its confusing to lable that as counting double.

(ok, I guess I did get started about away goals "counting as double").

Well, I feel better now.

Thank you.

..........

 

Yeah, that's a pet peeve of mine.

Like it's open season on another player simply because you got to the ball first.

 

as it happens, if you do get to the ball first, then it's probably not a foul. It's making contact with the player first that makes it a foul in many cases.

 

I think it depends how near you are. If you are 10 yards from goal then it's bad finishing. If you are 30 yards away then the difference between success or failure, in terms of the angle of flight of the ball, is miniscule. Given the small gaps players have to aim at to beat the keeper from that range, to do so but be 1 or 2 degrees out in accuracy could be described as unfortunate.

 

Even more annoying is when a commentator says that if the ball is not playable or if the attacker was going away from goal, then it can't be a penalty.

There is no such rule. If you foul in the box, it's a penalty, even if the ball is 100 yards away.

 

The Everton manager said the other day of a handball shout that "it hit his arm and changed the direction of the ball, so it had to be a penalty".


Actually what does annoy me a tad is when commentators criticise a linesman's mistake in a marginal offside (or even a ball crossing a goal-line) when it took them five goes in slow motion to decide themselves.

Mind you, I am sick of the number of linesmen who give a throw-in just because the part of the ball touching the grass has rolled over the line.

 

If we're voicing our pet-peeves: I am waiting for the first announcer to point out that the only gaffers who sit in the stands for a half (e.g., Big Sam and 'arry Redknapp) are the coaches who never challenge for a championship. Do you see Rafa, Jose, or Sir Alex sitting in the stands? Put your assistant in the stands and sit on the bench, you mid-table saps. Take care.

 

I'm sure if they stood Portsmouth and Newcastle would be right up there with the big four. Them standing will bridge the talent gap, it's that simple.

 

As a keeper, I say amen to that.

My personal pet peeve is when announcers scream hysterically that something must be a red card because the fouler was the last defender (or can't be red because he wasn't the last defender). The rule says nothing about last men. It's about denying a clear goal scoring opportunity.

The fact that the defender was the last man can be a consideration but it's not a requirement for a red. If a guy's on the wing near the halfline and gets fouled by a defender who's two yards in front of a pair of teammates in the middle, that's hardly a clear goal scoring opportunity, even if the defender was "the last defender."

 

Its part of the football vocabulary thats been around for a very long time before you were probably even born.

 

I also dislike when a commentator says so-and-so played 94 minutes, or something like that, just because there was 4 minutes of added time in the second half. How come added time in the first half is not figured in?

It's a 90 minute game, added time is for when players are standing around not actually playing.

 

Yes, that's it.

Whether correct or not, it's been said for so long that almost everyone says it and in many different cultures and countries as well as someone already mentioned.

It's hard to get rid of things like that becuz they are so deeply-rooted by now.

 

I do believe that hitting the post is unlucky, a player can hit the ball aswell as he could done everything right, but it's the inches of the post that can decide the game, an inch here and there and games and championships can be decided so luck has alot to do with it.

 

What's wrong with Unlucky? It's an entertaining look at life in the USL.

http://www.amazon.com/Unlucky-Seaso...9326268?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189904955&sr=8-1

In any case -- there's an element of luck in deflected shots, at the very least.

Soon we'll be debating Alanis Morissette's Ironic/