"Tap-ins"

[boatshed bill]

I love those beautifully created goals.

[chekhov]

Robert’s goal last night was a tap in, but Brownhill had quite a bit to do, it was a lovely volleyed finish and the build-up had some great passing. All the goals were special though.
Arsenal seem to be the team that has all the best team goals credited to them. Over the years they’ve scored some wonderful tap-ins.

[Greenmile]

Should it technically be “taps-in”, like attorneys-general,or courts-martial?

(NB - I don’t know the answer to this question, and recognise that “taps-in” sounds weird, but I am interested if anyone does know.)

[ElectroClaret]

Tap-ins are invariably well crafted in their build ups.
Looks simple, but a lot of work on the training pitch
and scouting of opposing defences have much to do
with the final result.

And it's great when it comes to fruition.

[dvalley69]

Should it technically be “taps-in”, like attorneys-general,or courts-martial?

(NB - I don’t know the answer to this question, and recognise that “taps-in” sounds weird, but I am interested if anyone does know.)

Taps in would be the verb form.
E.g. Roberts taps in to make it 3-0.

[pauliopaulio]

Should it technically be “taps-in”, like attorneys-general,or courts-martial?

(NB - I don’t know the answer to this question, and recognise that “taps-in” sounds weird, but I am interested if anyone does know.)

Is Pstotto back?

On a serious note I think both are correct. If we are talking about a tap-in as a “genre” of goal it should be taps-in as a collective group. If we’re talking about Brownhill and Roberts goal last night then it would be tap-ins as a plural.

Now I need a another beer(s)

[Greenmile]

Taps in would be the verb form.
E.g. Roberts taps in to make it 3-0.

I understand what you’re saying, and this could be one (of many) reasons why “taps-in” as a noun is never used.

My point, though, is that, like attorneys-general or courts-martial, “tap” is the noun which should be pluralised, but “in” is (in this case) an adjectival proposition (?? I think), so shouldn’t take the plural “s”.

Maybe “tap” is still a verb though. I’m confusing myself now.

[Greenmile]

Is Pstotto back? ….

No. But I have had a few drinks. Can you tell?

[dvalley69]

I understand what you’re saying, and this could be one (of many) reasons why “taps-in” as a noun is never used.

My point, though, is that, like attorneys-general or courts-martial, “tap” is the noun which should be pluralised, but “in” is (in this case) an adjectival proposition (?? I think), so shouldn’t take the plural “s”.

Maybe “tap” is still a verb though. I’m confusing myself now.

Haha. Got ya. Can't say I know about the noun in the plural form (other than tap-ins) and never heard those plural forms you've mentioned. They are interesting though as they show the noun before the adjective when obviously English is usually the other way round: a general attorney / martial court. 'Taps-in' is clearly not the same word classification, and can't say I have any idea apart from knowing that 'in' is a preposition.

[dvalley69]

No. But I have had a few drinks. Can you tell?

Cheers!