+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (https://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Cincinnati Bengals / NFL (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: JUNGLE NOISE (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-2.html)
+--- Thread: Game Narrative This Week (/thread-34556.html)
RE: Game Narrative This Week - bfine32 - 01-21-2023
(01-21-2023, 08:23 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: If you get a possession at the end of the half and beginning the 2nd half, without the other team getting one...that's 2 for 1.
The terminology is the same but the definition is different. Basketball is literally getting 2 possessions to the other teams 1. Football is getting 2 consecutive possessions instead of 1.
Wouldn't that be a 2 for none?
RE: Game Narrative This Week - Nepa - 01-21-2023
(01-21-2023, 08:23 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: If you get a possession at the end of the half and beginning the 2nd half, without the other team getting one...that's 2 for 1.
The terminology is the same but the definition is different. Basketball is literally getting 2 possessions to the other teams 1. Football is getting 2 consecutive possessions instead of 1.
That's really stretching things to try to make an inappropriate phrase fit. Announcers have adopted common basketball terminology, probably lazily, when it doesn't apply to the football situation. There is no two possessions for one team to one for the other; there are two consecutive possessions.
Where is the one? I really don't see it. It's two possessions in a row. How are you giving up one possession to get two possessions?
I don't think it's proper to create a new definition for two for one. (Actually, I don't even understand this new definition.) Not if you accept the common definition as used in basketball games for ages.
At any rate, its a small point that I raised. Not worth us continuing on, as it will just be semantics at this point.
RE: Game Narrative This Week - Forever Spinning Vinyl - 01-21-2023
(01-21-2023, 09:17 PM)Nepa Wrote: That's really stretching things to try to make an inappropriate phrase fit. Announcers have adopted common basketball terminology, probably lazily, when it doesn't apply to the football situation. There is no two possessions for one team to one for the other; there are two consecutive possessions.
Where is the one? I really don't see it. It's two possessions in a row. How are you giving up one possession to get two possessions?
I don't think it's proper to create a new definition for two for one. (Actually, I don't even understand this new definition.) Not if you accept the common definition as used in basketball games for ages.
At any rate, its a small point that I raised. Not worth us continuing on, as it will just be semantics at this point.
It's always comes down to some antics.