Due to

(4) and (5) should read 'couldn't be played'.

The rules for the use of an article vs. no article are the same as in other situations. If you are speaking of a specific rainstorm or a first-mentioned illness, use the article. If you are thinking of the general cause/concept, then you do not use the article. The difference in this situation is very minor, and in all of your sente

Thanks Mcawber

People want to see the match the organizers cancelled it due to rain. So the desperate football fans will definetly say the following:

They didn't play the match due to rain/because of rain.

After a couple of days, when writing to someone, you would write:

The match couldn't be played due to rain.


I am not sure about the flaw i

Which 'fourth sentence'?

The following:

4.The football match couldn't play due to rain.

As with (5), it should be

4.The football match couldn't be played due to rain.

Micawber

I can't fathom the flaw in my sentences.

Couldn't play is incorrect according to your analysis. It should be 'couldn't be played'.

I want to know what is wrong with 'couldn't play' in this situatiion.

A match is a game. Games do not play themselves; games are played by people. People play games; teams play matches. If you wish to use 'football match' as the subject of your sentence, you must cast the verb in the passive voice: 'The football match couldn't be played (by the teams) due to the rain.'

Is that clear?

Micawber

You are very clever at English grammar. I salute you for the explanation. I reflected on your answer; you are 100% correct.

I am glad that you are around us.

Andrei,

Please Due to.

Those that adhere to all rules would rewite the following sentence:

The football match couldn't be played due to rain.

The football match couldn't be played because of rain.

Note, you can usually ignore

Just bumping this thread up so that Andrei will see it.