WWTBAM Bored

I thought this scourge was dying out with many sport announcers switching to the much more accurate "consecutive" as in the "the Texans have scored 20 consecutive points" rather than the inaccurate "the Texans have scored 20 unanswered points". Obviously the "unanswered" bit would only be correct if the opposing team failed to "answer" with a score and you don't know that until the end of the game.

But, no, it is still around. I heard numerous announcers this weekend in college and pro games say just after a team had scored that the team has now "scored X number of unanswered points" and the announcer included the just scored touchdown.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

But maybe someday "unanswered" will go away. Once "carrying the ball like a loaf of bread" was ubiquitous and usually inaccurate since bread is almost never carried in the style that announcers were comparing it to. That phrase has died a rightful death and, hopefully, so will "unanswered".

If it leaves again, can it take "walk-off home run" with it? It's a game-ender, guys!

I'm partial to "he's got good speed".

AnnoyingParkAttraction wrote:If it leaves again, can it take "walk-off home run" with it? It's a game-ender, guys!

I'm not sure I get the inaccuracy of "walk-off home run". It's a home run and you walk off the field after it because the game is over.

If you prefer "game-ender" that's fine but it doesn't make "walk-off home run" inaccurate.

Different class of objection in my mind. I'm after inaccurate statements.

andrewjackson wrote:

AnnoyingParkAttraction wrote:If it leaves again, can it take "walk-off home run" with it? It's a game-ender, guys!

I'm not sure I get the inaccuracy of "walk-off home run". It's a home run and you walk off the field after it because the game is over.

If you prefer "game-ender" that's fine but it doesn't make "walk-off home run" inaccurate.

Different class of objection in my mind. I'm after inaccurate statements.

I was just after annoying and overused. Carry on!

Yes, I'm back, and I may never leave again!

AnnoyingParkAttraction wrote:

andrewjackson wrote:

AnnoyingParkAttraction wrote:If it leaves again, can it take "walk-off home run" with it? It's a game-ender, guys!

I'm not sure I get the inaccuracy of "walk-off home run". It's a home run and you walk off the field after it because the game is over.

If you prefer "game-ender" that's fine but it doesn't make "walk-off home run" inaccurate.

Different class of objection in my mind. I'm after inaccurate statements.

I was just after annoying and overused. Carry on!

Ah, well if annoying and overused is the standard then John Madden and Brent Musberger have both got to go.

On second thought, they both have to go no matter what the standard is.

andrewjackson wrote:I thought this scourge was dying out with many sport announcers switching to the much more accurate "consecutive" as in the "the Texans have scored 20 consecutive points" rather than the inaccurate "the Texans have scored 20 unanswered points". Obviously the "unanswered" bit would only be correct if the opposing team failed to "answer" with a score and you don't know that until the end of the game.

But, no, it is still around. I heard numerous announcers this weekend in college and pro games say just after a team had scored that the team has now "scored X number of unanswered points" and the announcer included the just scored touchdown.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

But maybe someday "unanswered" will go away. Once "carrying the ball like a loaf of bread" was ubiquitous and usually inaccurate since bread is almost never carried in the style that announcers were comparing it to. That phrase has died a rightful death and, hopefully, so will "unanswered".

I'm not sure I understand the objection. If "unanswered" means, as my dictionary says, something that is not responded to in a certain period of time, then it sure seems like using "unanswered" in the context above is indeed correct.

In last Sunday's game, the announcers said at one point the Redskins had scored 23 unanswered points - the Eagles had jumped out to a 14-0 lead and then the Redskins scored 23 (which made me very, very, happy). At the time the announcer made the statement, which was after the Eagles had gotten the ball back and failed to score, it was true - and remained so until the Eagles got a field goal.

Something can be "unanswered" at present but answered later. For example, I have some e-mails that are "unanswered" right now but when I respond to them later they will no longer be in that category.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. You seem to have very strong feelings about this so perhaps I'm missing something - is your contention that for something to be "unanswered" that must be its permanent state?

trevor_macfee wrote:

andrewjackson wrote:I thought this scourge was dying out with many sport announcers switching to the much more accurate "consecutive" as in the "the Texans have scored 20 consecutive points" rather than the inaccurate "the Texans have scored 20 unanswered points". Obviously the "unanswered" bit would only be correct if the opposing team failed to "answer" with a score and you don't know that until the end of the game.

But, no, it is still around. I heard numerous announcers this weekend in college and pro games say just after a team had scored that the team has now "scored X number of unanswered points" and the announcer included the just scored touchdown.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

But maybe someday "unanswered" will go away. Once "carrying the ball like a loaf of bread" was ubiquitous and usually inaccurate since bread is almost never carried in the style that announcers were comparing it to. That phrase has died a rightful death and, hopefully, so will "unanswered".

I'm not sure I understand the objection. If "unanswered" means, as my dictionary says, something that is not responded to in a certain period of time, then it sure seems like using "unanswered" in the context above is indeed correct.

In last Sunday's game, the announcers said at one point the Redskins had scored 23 unanswered points - the Eagles had jumped out to a 14-0 lead and then the Redskins scored 23 (which made me very, very, happy). At the time the announcer made the statement, which was after the Eagles had gotten the ball back and failed to score, it was true - and remained so until the Eagles got a field goal.

Something can be "unanswered" at present but answered later. For example, I have some e-mails that are "unanswered" right now but when I respond to them later they will no longer be in that category.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. You seem to have very strong feelings about this so perhaps I'm missing something - is your contention that for something to be "unanswered" that must be its permanent state?

Yes, I believe that "unanswered" is more than consecutive. When the Texans scored 20 consecutive points on Sunday those were answered by the Colts. OK, the Colts might not have scored on their very next possession but they did "answer" the Texans. In your example, I would still assert that the last score by the Redskins was "answered" so that Washington only scored 16 points unanswered. I just checked. That last touchdown by Washington was in the 4th quarter and the Eagles scored 7 minutes later. I would count that last touchdown as answered by the field goal.

At a bare minimum announcers should wait until after the opposing team has failed to score. "Unanswered" should never be used immediately after a score as it often is. If announcers waited to see the result of the next possession then I would have less problems with the use of "unanswered". I would still prefer "consecutive" since that will remain true no matter what the other team does and is just as informative.

Really when most announcers say "unanswered" what they mean is "consecutive".


Hmmm. Websters Collegiate says:

Un-an-swered

1. not answered (unanswered letters)
2. scored in succession during a period in which an opponent fails to score (scored 20 unanswered points in the last quarter)

That second definition would seem to imply that to be unanswered the scoring must not just be successive but the only points of the period. If announcers stick to that I would be OK with it. But again, this would never be correct immediately after a score.

I have a feeling Skoop may weigh in on this when she gets up.
We've had this conversation a few times.

I think she and AJ are on the same page.

andrewjackson wrote:

AnnoyingParkAttraction wrote:If it leaves again, can it take "walk-off home run" with it? It's a game-ender, guys!

I'm not sure I get the inaccuracy of "walk-off home run". It's a home run and you walk off the field after it because the game is over.

If you prefer "game-ender" that's fine but it doesn't make "walk-off home run" inaccurate.

Different class of objection in my mind. I'm after inaccurate statements.

It could be argued that "walk-off" is inaccurate insomuch as you can't IMMEDIATELY walk off - you have to do some other stuff first. Just ask Fred Merkle.

I'm in full agreement with AJ. I'm also glad my Giants got the Racial Slurs in the first week, before they had a working two-minute drill. Worst we can do is split the season series with them.

You should pray for an end to stupid sportscaster cliches. God answers all prayers. Sometimes, the answer is "no."

TheConfessor wrote:You should pray for an end to stupid sportscaster cliches. God answers all prayers. Sometimes, the answer is "no."

"No" wouldn't be the best answer to this prayer but it would probably be the answer that I get.

My main beef with "unanswered" is my usual beef with particular phrases. People use it without thinking about what they are actually saying. Somehow "unanswered" has entered their brains as "consecutive" and they are bound and determined to use it that way.

Does it have a stronger connotation than "consecutive"? I guess it does. Still doesn't make it right.

To me.

I'll be honest - I've never understood your objection to the phrase.

"Unanswered" means just that - it does not mean that the other team has failed to answer - just that they haven't - whether they've had a chance to answer or not.

If I let the phone ring cuz I know it is a sales pitch I want to skip is that
different from one than a slaes call when I'm not home. They are both unanswered.

I do agree that Musberger needs to go - I avoid games with him announcing - (I liked his Meryman better).

I want "scoreless game" to go away.

But we've had this discussion before.