I don't know when it went from the occasional announcer doing these things to it being accepted as the right way of doing things but there are two things that announcers do that really drive me crazy. The first is when they say someone is out with a hamstring. You could put any body part into that sentence and it would drive me crazy. Is it a pulled hamstring? Torn? Does the guy only have one hamstring because that would certainly explain why he is out of the game. Simply stating "he is out with an ankle" is stupid. Even if you don't know what the injury is you could say something like he is out with an ankle injury. You are paid to talk. Is it that hard to say the one extra word? Is ESPN paying the announcers by the word and telling them to cut out as many words as possible? If they are paying by the word then why the hell is Mark May on TV at all? Actually why is he on TV at all? Ok sorry for that tangent. The point is simply stating a body part as a reason a guy is out drives me crazy.
The second announcers do these days is use the word defensed. "They really defensed that played well". You have a great defense but you defend a play well. You do not defense a play. Do we defense our country against invaders? No we defend it against them. The castle was not defensed well, it was well defended. It may even be proper grammar to say "he defensed the play" but it just sounds better to say defended.
I am not sure when these two things took over. At first it was a guy or two here and there. I chalked it up to a slip of the tongue. Now someone has decided that every announcer must declare a guy is out with a leg after defensing a play well. I want to meet that someone and kick him so hard that the rest of his life he would wear a cup to defense his nut sack.