"Merkle's Blunder"

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2008/09/23/2008-09-23_the_merkle_blunder_and_baseballs_most_fa-2.html

So says the Daily News, apparently not wanting to offend people. I was curious as to the reaction either way, especially when the play has never been referred to as such.

 

I've only seen it referred to as Merkle's Boner.

hehehe

 

Della's Blunder
http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/61449/

 

You said boner.

 

I totally disagree. That is the celebration of the event. This is the journalistic side of changing the name of an event because a newspaper is afraid of the connotation.

 

Any better?

 

The "name of the event" was invented by some sportswriter anyway, at a time when the term was innocuous. Is it wrong to say, "Franco Harris' amazing catch in the Super Bowl" instead of "Immaculate Reception?" Of course not.

I wouldn't expect any self-respecting newspaper to refer to Tiger Woods as gay after the birth of his child, though I'm sure he was happy as hell.

The connotation of the word has changed and the fact that every one of us - every one of us - giggles a little to ourselves when referring to Merkle's boner, tells me that it may not be appropriate in the newspaper anymore.

I think the term is funny as hell. But I can certainly understand if a newspaper wants to maintain higher standards rather than go for a cheap laugh out of ingrates like myself.

There are only two reasons to continue calling it Merkle's Boner -- to get a third-grade laugh out of it or to avoid the knee-jerk "PC POLICE!!!!" reaction to calling it a blunder.

 

Methinks my friend slappy is saying Deep Background.

(After further review, methinks you already figured that out)

 

Yes, it's wrong. Because the catch happened during an AFC divisional playoff game, not the Super Bowl.

 

Now that would be a yes.

 

Sonofabitch.

 

boner.