Denied by Missing

By -
Watching a footbal (soccer) match in England the other day, I had for the hundredth time that an attempt on goal was "denied by the crossbar." Hockey announcers say something similar.

Folks, a shot that hits the crossbar has missed the goal. It wasn't on the way in and the crossbar suddenly jumped in front of it. I think it's only the fact that the posts in hockey and soccer are rarely hit that leads people tp say this. You never hear of a basketbal shooter being "denied by the rim."

Comments

  1. Anonymous3:04 PM

    "a shot that hits the crossbar has missed the goal. It wasn't on the way in"

    Two comments:

    1. Since the goal comprises the goalposts and the crossbar, a shot that hits the crossbar has in fact hit the goal, albeit that isn't a goal.

    2. Whether or not the ball was on the way in, but for the crossbar, would surely depend upon the trajectory of the ball?

    Julius (up the blues)

    ReplyDelete
  2. EDI8:27 PM

    Well, the crossbar is certainly a part of the goal seen as a physical construct, but it's not a part of the goal in terms of "When the ball is there, its a goal." And certainly, with the right flight path, a ball can strike the crossbar and proceed into the scoring area of the goal. That shot didn't miss.

    ReplyDelete
  3. gcallah7:48 AM

    Re Emma's post, i.e., hitting the crossbar hits the physical goal but not the teleological goal.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more