Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:07:30 -0500 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Wednesday, January 2, 2002, Deron Treadwell wrote:
>
> The following is a release from the University of Maine from
> http://www.goblackbears.com:
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> The Black
> Bears appeared to have tied the game later in the period but a goal was
> nullified due to a high stick.
Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic, but this language has always irked me.
It wasn't that a goal was nullified, the goal never happened. The puck
entered the net, yes, but it wasn't a goal. To word it as above is, in some
way, demeaning to the goalie by implying that she didn't stop a valid shot.
On the other hand, wording it more exactly would be a bit more ponderous.
"The Black Bears appeared to have tied the game later in the period but the
puck had entered the net by a high stick."
Pat Carr
Cornell
|
|
|