Football commentators
"Saved by the post/bar/woodwork." No, the "woodwork" forms the goal, the attacking side have to put the ball within the goal to score. Hitting the post or bar means that they have narrowly failed to do so. Unless the goal takes it upon itself to move and block a shot which would have otherwise gone in then the phrase is quite incorrect.

Also, penalties. The taker "sends the keeper the wrong way" or the keeper "guesses right." How do they know?
(Cave Duck, Sun 11 Apr 2010, 10:15, 5 replies)

Re the first comment - shut up and and don't be such a dick. The commentator is accurate enough - it's just a way of highlighting a near-miss, and also highlighting the fact that the defence has been poor.

Re the second point - They know owing to the result of the penalty. If the keeper dives the wrong way, clearly the taker has sent him the wrong way. If the keeper saves the shot he has guessed right. Fairly straightforward, no?
( disasterprone "Pyjamas caused the Holocaust", Mon 12 Apr 2010, 9:48, closed)

Utter nonsense
In the first comment the woodwork has made no active intervention, therefore there has been no act of saving. You might as well say, when a shot goes just wide that the defending side was saved by the grass or the air between the goal and where the ball passed the goal. It makes no sense at all.

On the second point, they have no idea at all whether the keeper guessed or followed the ball.If the ball broke to a forward twelve yards from the keeper in normal play you wouldnt expect him to just guess where the shot might go, so why must it be the case for a penalty? Equally if the keeper does decide in advance which way he is going to dive and he is wrong, he has not been actively sent the wrong way, the taker has not influenced the keeper in anyway.

So, no it's not straightforward at all and you should try to be less twatbastardy in future.
(Cave Duck, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 0:03, closed)

send the keeper the wrong way
you look one way or "shape to shoot one way" and shoot the other way, so you send the kepper the other way with your body language or your eyes.

The keeper guesses the right way, the keeper guesses that you are going to shoot in a certain way and gets a save in.

Seems ok to me
(semp, Mon 12 Apr 2010, 12:05, closed)

I'm not suggesting that it isn't possible
for the striker to send the keeper the wrong way. What I'm saying is that the commentator doesn't know whether this happened or not. It could equally be that the keeper has a set pattern. It's the assumption that it must be because of the taker's action that the keeper dives the wrong way that is incorrect. If the keeper's actions were wholly dictated by taker then the commentators should also say, (when the keeper goes the right way) that the taker sent the keeper the right way.
(Cave Duck, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 0:16, closed)

Wrong, wrong, wrong, brimming over with wrongability
Fortuitous is not the same lucky. It simply means by accident. Things can be fortuitous and bad.
(unclestinky, Mon 12 Apr 2010, 22:46, closed)