... I have, I would hesitate each time I defend...

[Tan Elaine]

If I were to go into a soccer match thinking of how many yellow cards I have, I would hesitate each time I defend, and we would end up letting more goals in.

Are the verbs in bold wrong? Thanks.

 

[Route21]

As an NES but not a teacher, the bold wording is "natural" BrE spoken English, but may or may not be acceptable to an English exam/test environment.

"Have" means "have received".
"I defend" means "I defend our goal area".

Regards
R21

 

[BobK]

:up: Or 'I have to my name' (that is, it feels to me like a lexical verb rather than an auxiliary with its main verb ellipted).

b

 

[Tan Elaine]

If I were to go into a soccer match thinking of how many yellow cards I have, I would hesitate each time I defend, and we would end up letting more goals in.

Since 'were' makes the sentence hypothetical, I think I should change have to had, and defend to defended. Am I right?

Thanks.

 

[Route21]

:up: Or 'I have to my name' (that is, it feels to me like a lexical verb rather than an auxiliary with its main verb ellipted).
b

I couldn't have said it better! ;-)
R21

 

[Tan Elaine]

If I were to go into a soccer match thinking of how many yellow cards I have, I would hesitate each time I defend, and we would end up letting more goals in.

Since 'were' makes the sentence hypothetical, I think I should change have to had, and defend to defended. Am I right?

Thanks.

 

[Route21]

Building on BobK's point:

If it were to read "how many yellow cards I have against my name", changing "have" to "had" could change the meaning, as with "had" (in the past), some of those yellow cards may have "lapsed" and no longer attract any penalty, which would not be true with (currently/actively) "have".

Regards
R21

 

[emsr2d2]

I would say that "If I were to go into a football match thinking about how many yellow cards I had, I would hesitate every time I defended and would end up letting more goals in" is more natural.

 

[SoothingDave]

Building on BobK's point:

If it were to read "how many yellow cards I have against my name", changing "have" to "had" could change the meaning, as with "had" (in the past), some of those yellow cards may have "lapsed" and no longer attract any penalty, which would not be true with (currently/actively) "have".

Regards
R21

I don't know if yellow cards carry over from game to game (I think they don't). But I think the point is that a player still has so many yellow cards against him in his record, in his statistics.

His point is that if he played like he was worried about getting called for another infraction, he would be tentative and not effective.

We see similar things in American football, where players are sometimes given monetary fines by the league for using "excessive" violence in tackling opponents. Even if a player has been fined once or twice before in a season, he can't play like he's worried about getting another fine. He's got to play the game the only way he knows how.

 

[emsr2d2]

I think, but I'm really not sure, that yellow cards can be carried over from game to game in a tournament, rather than just within league games. I'm entirely prepared to be very wrong about that. I haven't been to a football match since I was 12.

 

[Route21]

I think, but I'm really not sure, that yellow cards can be carried over from game to game in a tournament, rather than just within league games. I'm entirely prepared to be very wrong about that. I haven't been to a football match since I was 12.

But would yellow cards that he "had" from last year's league/international/friendly games give him cause for concern or would their effect have "timed out"?

I don't know enough about the current rules of the various sports to tell.

Regards
R21

 

[emsr2d2]

But would yellow cards that he "had" from last year's league/international/friendly games give him cause for concern or would their effect have "timed out"?

I don't know enough about the current rules of the various sports to tell.

Regards
R21

Last season wouldn't count but within the football season or within the tournament, they might. I'm sure I recall in a World Cup match at some point, someone being sent off even though the foul they committed in the match I was watching only warranted a yellow card. However, they had already been given at least one other yellow card during that tournament (perhaps in a match in an earlier round several weeks ago) and those were added together to make a red card.

I think the simple fact is that if yellow cards didn't carry over sometimes, there would be absolutely no point to the OP's example statement which I assumed was a quote from a footballer.

 

[BobK]

:up: They do get carried over in the opening rounds of a tournament, and in the next round everyone starts from scratch. Also, national organizations may, I suppose, have their own rules. For example, I imagine the FA would instigate some kind of disciplinary procedure if a player accumulated more than N yellow cards in a season; but that's just a guess.

b

 

[Route21]

:up: They do get carried over in the opening rounds of a tournament, and in the next round everyone starts from scratch. ......
b

Would it then be possible/correct to infer, from a purely logical point of view, that:

a) any yellow cards that a player "had" against his name from the early rounds would not worry him in subsequent rounds, whereas

b) any that he "has" against his name from the current round would?

Regards
R21

 

[emsr2d2]

A yellow card which is no longer being taken into consideration can, I suppose, be viewed as a card that the player "had" and ones that are still a problem can be viewed as cards he "has". However, in the original sentence, the word "If" was used and I would still follow that with "had" and "defended". There's a difference between the two following statements:

If I went into every game worrying about how many yellow cards I had, I would hesitate each time I defended.
I go into every game worrying about how many yellow cards I have, and I hesitate each time I defend.

 

[Route21]

A yellow card which is no longer being taken into consideration can, I suppose, be viewed as a card that the player "had" and ones that are still a problem can be viewed as cards he "has".
......

If I went into every game worrying about how many yellow cards I had, I would hesitate each time I defended.
.......

I see, from the first paragraph, above, that you acknowledge the logic of using "have" rather than "had".

In the second paragraph, above, he would not be worried about how many yellow cards that he "had" against his name, merely those that he "has" against his name.

I don't suppose there are any established, written rules/guidelines that cover this specific sentence structure?

Otherwise we may just have to "shake hands" and agree to differ on the use of "has/had" in this very specific context.

Best regards
R21