Amazing; 4 Unanswered goals. I like the start of this Sunday.
OT: Wings vs. Blackhawks 3/7/10
Huet played terrible for the Hawks, but I liked the way we are playing this period. Our defense has improved in the second period for sure. The Wings will be dangerous in the playoffs if we can get in, which I think we will.
Havent gotten that pumped up during a regular season hockey game in a while, amazing...
GO REDWINGS AND GO BLUE!!
Awesome steal and breakaway by Datsuyk with 2 secs left.
Make it 5 unanswered! Go Wings!
Wish I could watch, but I have SO MUCH work!
Pavel Datsyuk; "In Soviet Russia, hole fives you"
away was beautiful - glad that the wings are on national tv, so I can see them.
was the best period the Wings have played all year. Or at least Huet made it look like it. Great defensive pressure to force turnovers leading to breaks
is exactly the reason why I would never bet money on Chicago or San Jose to win the Cup...I like what I see from the Wings, but they have to play this well consistently over the rest of the season.....GO WINGS
I don't think I've ever actually seen a player make a diving motion like that on the bench. That was a great pantomime by Mule
What the heck gentlemen
The Blackhawks are acting like whiny bitches right now
What a frantic finish. F you, Blackhawks!!
I wish the Wings hadn't have let it get that close. It would be nice to see them do a better job defending leads. Still, a win is a win. And on the road, too!
The refs had more to do with it being close than the blackhawks did. They were doing anything they could to help CHicago get back in the game in the 3rd. Did you see that penalty they called on Franzen? Only Christiano Ronaldo could do a better dive than that. Chicago is still little brother in hockey.
the refs let them play today. They missed some on both teams and called a weak holding on hank, but overall the wings are lucky they made the goalie interference call early in the second. Also, the play you are referencing was not called a penalty, iirc.
Hm...phantom goalie interference call negating a goal ring a bell? The refs weren't great today, but they never are. Still, Chicago did NOT get all of the calls.
It's nice to see Datsyuk play to his potential though. Haven't seen too much of that this year.
The road to the Stanley Cup still goes through Detroit. Go Wings!
How so, exactly?
Pet peeve: Unanswered and consecutive do not mean the same thing.
to explain the correct usage/meaning of each, rather than just saying it's not right...
It ought to be pretty self-intuitive. Goals aren't "unanswered" if the game is still ongoing because obviously they were "answered" eventually. Just not adequately. Had the Blackhawks not scored for the rest of the game, they'd have been unanswered. You use "unanswered" when describing a game that's over, not one in progress.
I hope I don't have to explain the correct usage of "consecutive."
Good thing Chicago's two unanswered goals were not enough.
now this gets fun. Depending on the time period (PUN!) you could say we scored 5 unanswered goals. Chicago did not answer in the period. Thus we have a problem in definition of the time frame, you assume the whole game, others may assume the period. Also, at the time the comment was made, the goals were unanswered, thus it was a legitimate comment at the time. The goals were pending an answer, no answer had yet been given so they were unanswered. I would also argue that it is fair to say that we scored 4 unanswered goals (in the game) because we scored 5 before they scored any, thus 4 of our goals were unanswered, but if you use that that way of speaking, then it just gets confusing because (most) people would take that as we scored 4 goals in a row. Or you could say we scored one unanswered for the game, because they had an answer for four of our goals (either prior or post the goal itself), but the fifth one they couldn't come up with, but again, that gets confusing. Obviously you knew what he meant or you couldn't have gotten upset over it. Also obviously, it was not self-intuitive, or everyone would know and I wouldn't have to ask and you wouldn't have had to correct the OP. I asked about "consecutive" because if we had differing definitions of "uanswered" we could very easily have different ideas of "consecutive" too.
My semantics are different than yours, shoot me. No, I don't care what's "accepted usage" and neither do my friends.
Though if it makes you feel better, I will get off my high horse and say that when I see/hear things like "ridic"(ulous), "legit"(imate) and other asinine "abbreviations" I go ballistic. And really, "legit" is very widely accepted, enough to be defined on dictionary.com, which claims it's origin in the early 1900's.
i was writing something very similar until i decided to f5 and saw your post. basically, if the time domain encapsulating the term is varying then "unanswered" could be used in an infinite number of ways (/logic). it would even be acceptable to say detroit's 4 "unanswered" goals last season in the first two games of the stanley cup finals were "answered" in game 3. therefore, they were not "unanswered". because things like this are only said by the captain literals of the world, i would go ahead and say detroit scored 5 unanswered goals against chicago.
cliffs: add me to the "unanswered == consecutive" team.
As proof of the idea that "unanswered" is commonly substituted incorrectly for "consecutive", I submit to you that you have never heard anyone refer to a single goal as "unanswered." You wouldn't refer to the first goal of a game as "unanswered" unless it was also the last, yet by using your proposition that the time periods are flexible, that's exactly what people ought to be doing. The moment a goal is scored, it is unanswered, is it not?
Here's an example of annoying, incorrect (IME) usage:
The Florida Gators appeared to be a much tougher match for the Bruins, and came out to UCLA's 2nd game of the day with 3 early unanswered goals. However, after a quick timeout to regroup, the Bruins found their stride, beginning with an unassisted drive from rookie, Rebecca Trees. A 9-1 scoring run followed, and the Bruins ended the half with a 9-4 lead. The Gators weren't able to answer, and UCLA ended the night with their third win of the weekend, 13-7.
Clearly, the "three early goals" were answered. Here, they mean "consecutive."
Thanks to a late 2nd period goal and two more in the 3rd period, the Milwaukee Admirals broke open a 1-1 tie with three unanswered goals to defeated the Iowa Chops 4-1 Sunday in Milwaukee.
Here the goals truly were unanswered. If you are down by two and score three to win the game, the goals are unanswered. If you simply score two to tie, and then the other team scores again, your goals were not unanswered. If you score four, and then the other team scores before the game ends, your goals were not unanswered. They just weren't answered by enough.
I'd even go so far as to grudgingly accept that you could say "the Wings scored five unanswered goals in the second period" as long as you were clearly trying to make the point that the Wings scored five without the Hawks scoring any during that single period.
But in the middle of the streak, it is as improper to say "the Wings have now scored four unanswered goals" as it would be silly to say "the Wings score an unanswered goal to cut the lead to 2-1!!!"
you never refer to the first goal as "consecutive".
The moment a goal is scored it is unanswered, within the time period, but why would one say that when it's easier to say "scored a goal" adding the word "unanswered" adds in extra syllables that are unnecessary, because the description doesn't add anything. According to your argument, one goal can easily be referred to as unanswered, especially if it's the only goal in a game (or grudgingly, a period), so your saying that you shouldn't refer to one goal as unanswered, only hurts your own argument.
Also, according to your own argument, I should NOT have to clearly make the point that I was specifically talking about the second period if I said the Wings scored 5 unanswered goals, because the only correct usage would be to assume that I meant in the period, so I shouldn't have to make that clear, the fact that I should have to make that clear, when it's the only correct usage, according to you, so you should assume I meant the second period.
I would argue every time you win, you score at least one "unanswered" goal, even if most of them are eventually answered.
I see your point, I just don't agree. I think it's fine to call consecutive goals unanswered because almost everybody else does the same. As you noticed with your examplse. Also, the examples were a nice touch. Very classy.
You should probably write a letter to every single sportscaster in the entire universe. They all say it, and I doubt it will stop anytime soon.
Suck it Hawks! It would be funny to see the Blackhawks get sued for their racist uniforms, but if they changed their logo it might not be as fun to wax them while constantly reminding them who still knows how to get it done.
I was there! Nothing better than hearing 18,000 Hawks fans chanting "Detroit Sucks" right after the Wings' third goal.
Hawks fans were pissed.... media going crazy and fueling the fire that the Hawks goalie situation will not get them to the Stanley Cup finals.
Wings needed that game big time, not just for the two points, but to show the Hawks that they could beat them (for the first time in 4 games).
Now that the olympics are over I can go back to wishing Patrick Kane would suck Cindy Criesby's wiener. Thank God for that.
In Mario's basement :)
I just had to come in here to say Datsyuk's steal and breakaway goal was absolutely sick. Patrick Kane got schooled, Niemi got schooled, and it ended up being the game winning goal. Awesome. Awesome to the max.