Has/had

[Allen165]

"Jason Collins hits a field goal. Jason Collins, who has scored only two points coming into this game."

The above quote is from a commentator of a basketball game. I think he said "has," but I'm wondering if it should be "had."

Prior to the game Collins had scored only two points and now he has scored his third and fourth points. Would you have said "has" or "had"?

Thanks.

 

[Nightmare85]

**Neither a teacher nor a native speaker.**

Has scored.... :tick:
This means he has not finished his scoring yet.

Had scored would mean he doesn't play basketball anymore.
(Or at least just the game, not his carrier.)

Cheers!

 

[sarat_106]

**Neither a teacher nor a native speaker.**

Has scored.... :tick:
This means he has not finished his scoring yet.

Had scored would mean he doesn't play basketball anymore.
(Or at least just the game, not his carrier.)

Cheers!

Your interpretation is perfectly right, However, there are some grammatical errors that need correction. This is a complex sentence with a restrictive(defining) clause introduced by the relative pronoun ‘who’. Please note that defining clauses opened by a relative pronoun ARE NOT separated by a comma from the main clause. Besides, the main clause3 needs a full verb. So you can say:
Jason Collins who has scored only two points finds way to coming into this game.

 

[Allen165]

Your interpretation is perfectly right, However, there are some grammatical errors that need correction. This is a complex sentence with a restrictive(defining) clause introduced by the relative pronoun ‘who’. Please note that defining clauses opened by a relative pronoun ARE NOT separated by a comma from the main clause. Besides, the main clause3 needs a full verb. So you can say:
Jason Collins who has scored only two points finds way to coming into this game.

I'm not sure I understood your post. I put a comma after "Jason Collins" because the commentator made a pause.

I don't think your sentence is correct. It should read something like this:

Jason Collins, who has scored only two points, finds his way into the game.

But I don't see how that sentence relates to mine.

 

[sarat_106]

I'm not sure I understood your post. I put a comma after "Jason Collins" because the commentator made a pause.

I don't think your sentence is correct. It should read something like this:

Jason Collins, who has scored only two points, finds his way into the game.

But I don't see how that sentence relates to mine.

If I go by your point then the sentence “Jason Collins, who has scored only two points coming into this game." sounds incomplete. “who has scored only two points.” is a relative clause. So what is the main clause? Could I understand that after hitting a filled goal, Jason Collins is back into the game? In that case, treat the relative clause as non defining by adding comma before and after to add more information and it can be said as:
Jason Collins, who has scored only two points, comes back into this game with that goal.

 

[Allen165]

If I go by your point then the sentence “Jason Collins, who has scored only two points coming into this game." sounds incomplete. “who has scored only two points.” is a relative clause. So what is the main clause? Could I understand that after hitting a filled goal, Jason Collins is back into the game? In that case, treat the relative clause as non defining by adding comma before and after to add more information and it can be said as:
Jason Collins, who has scored only two points, comes back into this game with that goal.

It sounds incomplete because it is incomplete. I merely wrote what the commentator said. Incomplete sentences aren't all that uncommon in spoken English.

The sentence might be an ellipsis. Perhaps this is what it means:

"Jason Collins hits a field goal, the same Jason Collins who has scored only two points coming into this game."

 

[Raymott]

"Jason Collins hits a field goal. Jason Collins, who has scored only two points coming into this game."

The above quote is from a commentator of a basketball game. I think he said "has," but I'm wondering if it should be "had."

Prior to the game Collins had scored only two points and now he has scored his third and fourth points. Would you have said "has" or "had"?

Thanks.

"Had" would be correct. But if this is a sports commentary, it's a trivial mistake. There's no problem with the meaning, and it would have been a true comment at the beginning of the game.
Sports broadcasters are not known for their perfect English.

I don't agree with the previous explanations. Also, sports commentators do not necessarily talk in sentences. You can change the punctuation to make it a proper sentence if you like:
"Jason Collins hits a field goal - Jason Collins, who has/had scored only two points coming into this game."

 

[ratóncolorao]

I wonder if the commentator didn’t want to give dynamism to his speech by using the present instead of the past. In this way, this player, Jason Collins, seems to be everywhere.:roll: