Am I mistaken about this?

I'm a college student who works part-time at a small newspaper. In any staff-written story that contains a quote ending with "said [name here], who ..." the sports editor always changes it to "[name here] said, who ..."

For example, a sportswriter might put down: "I had a great game and I'm glad our team won," said Smith, who rushed 35 times for 205 yards."

The sports editor will change it to: "I had a great game and I'm glad our team won," Smith said, who rushed 35 times for 205 yards."

I've butted heads with him over this in the past, because I believe it's fundamentally wrong to put "Smith said, who." Who refers to Smith, so who should come right after Smith. My editor changes it because he apparently feels it is wrong to put "said" before the name in any situation.

Every AP story I've ever seen supports my position, but today I was doing a search and I found the following article about Jimmy Johnson at the Boston Herald website (http://sports.bostonherald.com/autoRacing/view.bg?articleid=169946):

The Johnson juggernaut didn’t end at Martinsville. Although it was Johnson’s only win during the Chase, he finished second at Texas Motor Speedway two weeks later, overtook Kenseth in the Chase standings and never looked back.

“We had the speed in the cars, we just couldn’t finish well at the start of the Chase,” Johnson said, who also won this year’s Daytona 500 and the Allstate 400 at the Brickyard.

This is making me reconsider. What are your thoughts? Is it acceptable to write "[name] said, who ..."?

 

I'll never use "Smith said, who Bootsed his sister."

Always always "said Smith, who gave his brother a reach-around ... "

 

In my books:

First (and best) choice: "I played great," said Smith, who had 14 points.

Second choice: "I played great," Smith, who had 14 points, said.

Never a choice: "I played great," Smith said, who had 14 points.

I once had an editor say attribute quotes the way you would if you spoke the words.

In spoken word it's "Smith said he played great."
Or, "Smith told me he played great."
So, using that theory, it should be "I played great," Smith said. PERIOD. End of quote attribution. No said Smith, who blah blah blah.

However, personally, I sometimes like using this "I played great," said Smith, who had 14 points.

 

Smith said is preferred over said Smith.

But if you are going to tack on more information you have to go with said Smith, who just got out of prison.

 

The correct answer.

 

"Quote," (subject) said

is a stylistic, not a grammatical rule
so it can be broken...sparingly.

Example A: "I spent the whole night drilling Lucy in the ass. Some things are more important than baseball," said Charlie Brown, who missed his first scheduled start in five seasons on Thursday.

that's gramatically correct, but a little weak

Example B: On Thursday, Charlie Brown missed his first scheduled start in five seasons. "I spent the whole night drilling Lucy in the ass. Some things are more important than baseball," Brown said.

that's better, IMO

Example C: "I spent the whole night drilling Lucy in the ass. Some things are more important than baseball," Charlie Brown said, who missed his first scheduled start in five seasons on Thursday.

I'm pretty sure that's wrong. In that example, the clause modifies "said" instead of "Charlie Brown."

 

Yes, WI, but tell us more about Charlie Brown drilling Lucy in the ass.

 

Well, I'm glad I contributed something to this thread, since the posters immediately before me covered the grammar before I did. Sorry...I was in a hurry to get back to work and didn't review those that had posted while I was writing.

Anyway, as far as the Charlie Brown cornholism thing goes, at first he really wanted to give it to Violet, since she's mean to him all the time...a total grudgefuck, back-door style. Naturally, she refused...Violet suffers from sexual anhedonia (can't enjoy sex, mainly 'cause she's such a bitch). Patty and Marcie weren't options, since they're "vegetarian" (no meat). So, that left Lucy...a better choice, really, since she and Charlie Brown are actually friends (unlike Chuck and Violet).

So they both went into the situation with different agendas. Brown was curious about anal. Lucy was hoping to make Schroeder jealous (a futile objective, granted...although to Schroeder's credit, he channels his sexual energy into music, as opposed to Violet, who clumsily misappropriates her sexual energy into a self-defeating misanthropy).

The results: a little surprising, really. Brown discovered that once you get over the initial taboo-breaking excitement, going five-hole isn't anywhere near as fun as vaginal. Lucy, lacking a prostate, didn't get all that much out of it, either, after the brief psychological rush.

Still, the experience "ended" up being both instructive and pleasurable for both Brown and Van Pelt. Over the course of their intimacies, Chuck performed anal-lingus on Lucy. Lucy found the rimming very pleasurable. "Mmmmmmmmmmmmm," Van Pelt said. Charlie Brown found that he quite liked tossing some salad. "Nnnnnnnnnnnggggg, nnnnnnnnnggg," Brown said.

When it comes to anal pleasure, keep in mind this maxim:
Back porch, not back door, Charlie Brown.

 

There's a reason we never actually SAW "The Little Red-Haired Girl" in the strip.

Schulz tried, but he couldn't do her justice.

 

Brilliant.

 

this isn't even a debate. your editor's a moron.

 

You have taken my childhood innocence.