Could you explain the reason why they use a hypothetical for an real event? This is where my confusion lies.
Yes. By presenting the situation as hypothetical, the speaker is creating a kind of remoteness of possibility. The way I understand this is that he's reluctant to commit to presenting the outcome as something that is real possibility. That could be, say, in an attempt to remain impartial.
Well, what if the game has started?
Your question here is an attempt to offer a reason as to why a speaker would be more likely to present the outcome as a real possibility. Well, I see what you're thinking, and yes, whether the game has started could be a determining factor, but it's still quite possible for the speaker to be thinking of a hypothetical outcome, even if the match is underway.
The game is back underway at Old Trafford!
It will/would be a surprise if the game stays/stayed at 2-1, with both sides desperate for the three points.
My understanding is that I would use "would" here because I'm imagining a situation. Do you agree with me?
Well, as you've said before, the speaker is imagining in both cases. The difference is in whether it's imagined as a hypothetical or as a real possibility.
It's really hard to understand this, but here's my way of thinking: In our minds we tend to think of history deterministically—in the same way that there is only one past history of events that we consider as 'factual', there is equally only one future history of events that has not yet happened, and to which we don't yet have access. This history, whether past or future, is 'real'. But, as a result of the power of our imaginations, we can also entertain alternative histories—things that didn't really happen in the past and things that will not happen in the future. These alternative histories are only hypothetical—they exist only in the imagination.
