Pedantry standards on Rage Online declining

[Matt D]

There was still time for Alessandro Pelicori to shoot against the post with Clarke beaten...

just read the QPR report, and am disappointed to see no one took issue with this...

[recordmeister]

I was on the tube yesterday and noticed that Earl's Court has an apostrophe, but Barons Court does not.

Why is this?

[Mally]

I was on the tube yesterday and noticed that Earl's Court has an apostrophe, but Barons Court does not.

Why is this?

Presumably a single Earl who had a court and a multiple Barons who had a court named after them but they didn't posess.

[slappy]

A TFL reply from the web
Those of you who - like me - lie awake at night wondering why Earl's Court has an apostrophe, but Barons Court doesn't, please see below an explanation from George Wu at TFL.

Thank you for your feedback form about the difference in the naming of Earl's Court and Barons Court.

The land in the Earl's Court area was owned by the De Vere family, Earls of Oxford, for over 500 years after Aubrey De Vere followed William the Conqueror to England in 1066. In other words, the area really was the court of an Earl, so merits the possessive apostrophe.

Barons Court developed as an area much later and the name was essentially made up to sound impressive and reflect the proximity to Earl's Court. There was no baron, so there's no apostrophe.

I hope the above answers your query.

Please do not hesitate to contact me again if you need any help in the future.

Yours sincerely,

George Wu
Customer Service Advisor
Customer Service Centre

Also, what was wrong with the original post?

[Matt D]

Also, what was wrong with the original post?

it reminded me of some rage online-esque correspondence i read some years ago in WSC taking issue with the description of a shot beating a goalkeeper but rebounding clear from the post. the particular bee in their bonnet was that unless a shot went into the goal (from the post or otherwise) the goalkeeper was not beaten.

i always like to think that the correspondent was a disgruntled former goalkeeper who'd been nursing this particular minor grievance for many a year...

[recordmeister]

Also, what was wrong with the original post?

it reminded me of some rage online-esque correspondence i read some years ago in WSC taking issue with the description of a shot beating a goalkeeper but rebounding clear from the post. the particular bee in their bonnet was that unless a shot went into the goal (from the post or otherwise) the goalkeeper was not beaten.

i always like to think that the correspondent was a disgruntled former goalkeeper who'd been nursing this particular minor grievance for many a year...

As a goalkeeper, there is nothing more annoying than having a penatly reported as being &quotmissed&quot when in fact the goalkeeper has made an excellent save. For me, the term &quotmissed&quot is when the taker fails to hit the target and sends the ball wide of the goal. &quotSaved&quot is an expression you don't hear often with regard to a penalty.

[boris]

Also, what was wrong with the original post?

it reminded me of some rage online-esque correspondence i read some years ago in WSC taking issue with the description of a shot beating a goalkeeper but rebounding clear from the post. the particular bee in their bonnet was that unless a shot went into the goal (from the post or otherwise) the goalkeeper was not beaten.

i always like to think that the correspondent was a disgruntled former goalkeeper who'd been nursing this particular minor grievance for many a year...

Surely the goalkeeper is beaten if he attempts to get the ball and it goes past him. What happens to the ball once it's past him is irrelevant.

The bee in my bonnet is that expression &quotsaved by the woodwork&quot and variations thereof. If a shot/header hits the post/bar and doesn't go in, then it has missed the target, the woodwork hasn't prevented the ball from going in.

[theox]

Also, what was wrong with the original post?

it reminded me of some rage online-esque correspondence i read some years ago in WSC taking issue with the description of a shot beating a goalkeeper but rebounding clear from the post. the particular bee in their bonnet was that unless a shot went into the goal (from the post or otherwise) the goalkeeper was not beaten.

i always like to think that the correspondent was a disgruntled former goalkeeper who'd been nursing this particular minor grievance for many a year...

Surely the goalkeeper is beaten if he attempts to get the ball and it goes past him. What happens to the ball once it's past him is irrelevant.

The bee in my bonnet is that expression &quotsaved by the woodwork&quot and variations thereof. If a shot/header hits the post/bar and doesn't go in, then it has missed the target, the woodwork hasn't prevented the ball from going in.

Ah, but if the goalkeeper is 'beaten' are his blushes not 'saved' but the fact that the ball has not gone in?!

[Mally]

Also, what was wrong with the original post?

it reminded me of some rage online-esque correspondence i read some years ago in WSC taking issue with the description of a shot beating a goalkeeper but rebounding clear from the post. the particular bee in their bonnet was that unless a shot went into the goal (from the post or otherwise) the goalkeeper was not beaten.

i always like to think that the correspondent was a disgruntled former goalkeeper who'd been nursing this particular minor grievance for many a year...

Surely the goalkeeper is beaten if he attempts to get the ball and it goes past him. What happens to the ball once it's past him is irrelevant.

The bee in my bonnet is that expression &quotsaved by the woodwork&quot and variations thereof. If a shot/header hits the post/bar and doesn't go in, then it has missed the target, the woodwork hasn't prevented the ball from going in.

Nothing wrong with the original statement as far as I'm concerned. As boris says a goalkeeper can be beaten with the striker 10 yards passed him infront of an open goal. As for the other part it didn't say the post saved the goal but that the striker shot against the post.

[amershamwrighty]

A welcome return to the pedantry that sets this forum apart from inferior versions.

[Matt D]

Surely the goalkeeper is beaten if he attempts to get the ball and it goes past him. What happens to the ball once it's past him is irrelevant.

The bee in my bonnet is that expression &quotsaved by the woodwork&quot and variations thereof. If a shot/header hits the post/bar and doesn't go in, then it has missed the target, the woodwork hasn't prevented the ball from going in.

i'm not sure i agree with the WSC correspondent, but to play advocate for the argument, if the aim of the shot is to go into the goal, and the aim of the goalkeeper is to prevent it from doing so, unless the goal is scored, the goalkeeper is not beaten?

but as mally points out, the sentence i picked out was ambiguous as to whether you were describing the 'keeper as being beaten by the shot, or some earlier action (e.g. a player dribbling the ball past him).

[SteMerritt]

I was on the tube yesterday and noticed that Earl's Court has an apostrophe, but Barons Court does not.

Why is this?

It is similar to Lord's Cricket Ground, which is of course the cricket ground established by Thomas Lord.