South Pender wrote:sj-roc wrote:Besides, it's simply a more compact phrase and also has the added benefit of encompassing its two-point variety that those other phrases don't offer. Mind you, this wasn't a big deal over most of NFL history since they didn't adopt the 2PC until 1994 (the CFL adopted it in 1975).
I suppose you do hear "two-point convert," but the more usual phrase in Canadian (as well as American) football, I think, is either "two-point conversion" or "going for two." The term "convert" in Canadian football (seldom heard south of the border) generally refers to the 1-point FG variety. I don't find the phrase "point after" at all clumsy and is, at least, unambiguous. It has one more syllable than "convert," but economy of expression is a virtue only if there's no reduction in clarity. I think that in general I'd prefer "point after" for the 1-pt. FG and "two-point conversion" for the TD variety.
What I find clumsy about it is two things. First, if you'd never heard the phrase before, you'd be wondering, point after
what? It sounds incomplete. And the complete phrase of point after touchdown just seems too long a name, especially to designate the lowest-valued score. Even its abbreviation PAT is longer than those of the other scores.
Second, all of the other scores in football, both in the CFL and NFL are comprised of point values in varying number and given their own names: touchdown, field goal, safety touch (or simply just safety), single/rouge (it seems the term rouge is making a comeback? IIRC there was a time when it was almost exclusively called a single). But to call this other score simply a point in itself, or more specifically a "point after touchdown" just seems to lack imagination. It would be like calling a field goal "three points after 3rd down". It's almost like it's only a placeholder name they're using until they come up with something a little more succinct. It's a type of score that, like the others, deserves its own name rather than simply invoking the generic word point, which is more properly regarded as measuring the value, rather than identifying the type, of the score. By analogy there are quarters, dimes and nickels worth 25, 10 and 5 cents each. There's also a coin worth one cent but it's not generally referred to as a cent in the way we use these other terms for the larger denominations; it's called a penny — all notwithstanding that the penny is now extinct in Canadian currency, of course!
As for convert, I don't know whether the word "conversion" gets used more often in media. Certainly the league's own rule book and record book uses the term convert over conversion exclusively. I don't feel it creates any reduction in clarity. Convert by itself can refer to either of its two varieties, but context will generally clarify if it is designating the one-point variety; if one specifically wishes to designate the two-point version, then one can say "two-point convert" (I often abbreviate it as 2PC in chatboardspeak) and there's no clearer or more concise way of saying this in NFL-style vernacular (merely AS clear or concise, at best). As for the phrase "going for two", it doesn't strike me as particularly native to either code. I use it myself but I don't claim it as a CFL device. One might also speak of "going for three" in the context of a FGA — mostly likely on your last down notwithstanding game clock management, whether this happens to be 3rd or 4th — rather than either punting or gambling with your offence.
On a completely different matter of scoring jargon, one occasionally hears in CFL circles, while it certainly isn't a part of its official lexicon, the word "major" or the phrase "major score" to denote a touchdown. I don't know if this usage has ever been a part of the NFL vernacular and I wonder how it ever gained a foothold with our league. I get that it might have been introduced for variety's sake, but at the same time one never hears a FG referred to as a "minor" or a "minor score".
Sports can be a peculiar thing. When partaking in fiction, like a book or movie, we adopt a "Willing Suspension of Disbelief" for enjoyment's sake. There's a similar force at work in sports: "Willing Suspension of Rationality". If you doubt this, listen to any conversation between rival team fans. You even see it among fans of the same team. Fans argue over who's the better QB or goalie, and selectively cite stats that support their views while ignoring those that don't.
