CFA quiz: spot the deliberate mistake

[RefJef]

If we’re being pedantic - and it seems that we are - the scenario does not say how he broke up (or stopped) the promising attack?

Isn’t that the role of the defending team, to stop promising attacks? Just they need to do so within the laws of the game. We’ve all just assumed that the blue defender “committed a foul ... that stops a promising attack”

 

[Trip]

Funny echo in here

I don't think that's pedantry. I think it's accuracy.

 

[JamesL]

If we’re being pedantic - and it seems that we are - the scenario does not say how he broke up (or stopped) the promising attack?

Isn’t that the role of the defending team, to stop promising attacks? Just they need to do so within the laws of the game. We’ve all just assumed that the blue defender “committed a foul ... that stops a promising attack”

Pedantry of the finest order, sir!
I salute you.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Is their a weekly award for pedantry?

 

[RefJef]

Is their a weekly award for pedantry?

Me, to myself: “Don’t take the bait, don’t take the bait, don’t take the bait”

 

[RefJef]

Funny echo in here

I don't think that's pedantry. I think it's accuracy.

Apologies - I thought you were complaining about the word “ breaking up” when it should be “stops” not that no mention was made of committing a foul to stop said promising attack.

 

[Trip]

Apologies - I thought you were complaining about the word “ breaking up” when it should be “stops” not that no mention was made of committing a foul to stop said promising attack.

My reply might have been ambiguous. The problem, in my opinion is that "breaking up" or "stopping" a promising attack is not an offence. There is no offence committed by the blue player mentioned in the question.

I wrote to the CFA and their reply was that the offence committed by the blue player is implied.

 

[one]

Is their a weekly award for pedantry?

Their is. But it's there award, not ours.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Their is. But it's there award, not ours.

I did that to check who was awake.... it’s quite prestigious!

 

[one]

I wrote to the CFA and their reply was that the offence committed by the blue player is implied.

That is quite common (implied assumptions) but sometimes it makes sense to specify them explicitly. For example ball being in play is implied in most quiz questions. Anyway I did a quiz a couple of weeks ago:



A trip has to be at leas careless, and even if it is, for any answer to be completely correct, a PK has to be awarded. The thing about quiz questions is, sometimes you have to decided if you want to give the expected answer or another options which is 'more correct'. For above question I answered d even though I knew the expected answer is a (just to make a point).

 

[Trip]

That is quite common (implied assumptions)

"Implied assumptions" doesn't really mean anything. "Assumed inferences" might make more sense. I think what's happened here is that the questioner has assumed that the reader will infer information that is not, in fact, implied. Which, given that his or her grasp of grammar and punctuation is tenuous, isn't very surprising.

I don't mind grammatical errors provided the meaning is clear, but in this case none of the answers are correct.

 

[The Referee]

Funny echo in here

Breaking up a promising attack is not even an offense. No caution required.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Breaking up a promising attack is not even an offense. No caution required.

Offenses aren’t normally offences either

 

[RobOda]

Breaking up a promising attack is not even an offense. No caution required.

It is if there's a foul committed for that purpose.

 

[socal lurker]

It is if there's a foul committed for that purpose.

Nitpick: no longer has to be for that purpose--that language was removed a year or two ago. The foul that breaks up a promising attack is cautionable, regardless of whether there was a purpose to do so. (Whether, in practice, an actual purpose was really required is a separate question....)

 

[one]

Breaking up a promising attack (English term) at the very least 'interferes' (LOTG term) with it and needs a caution BUT only if it is done through an offence. Defenders break up or stop or interfere with promising attacks legally a lot more often than illegally.