"You [ ] got ...." (without have), is only correct if uttered by Ray Davies.

How about "I was in Wembley when my car broke down" (London suburb) and "I was at Wembley when we beat the Germans 5-1" (the stadium).

How about "Ouch, that hurt" (being hit by a squash ball) "Where did it get you?" ... "It got me in the back"

Second case may be a little loose gramatically, but absolutely part of normal spoken English.

@Louis Wu - asking an American for help with English grammar is like asking a Swiss person for help with German grammar, it is only good in context.

If you want to speak English correctly then go to the source.

Just as you would say 'I got caught in the rain' or, you might say, 'I was caught in the rain' both of which imply an event in the past.

... Saxony?

Worcestershire....now try saying that if you're not a native.

No idea on patents, but this difference has been noted and studied.

Almost as good as Gloucestershire

Glow sister share - now that is a nice place.

Good points/examples - certainly used - but correct - it's hard to say.

The second part of the first example is again about what is not said - as in:
"I was at Wembley Stadium" (additional clarification, but in this instance definite article is not required) - obviously anyone in the know doesn't need the word "Stadium" - but this isn't the norm. (anyway, wasn't it 4-1?).

The second example - again intriguing - would be widely used and accepted - but to be grammatically correct, you (one) should not use got in this sentence, but ...... got should be substituted with hit:

"Where did it hit you?"
"It hit me in the back"

[a squash ball is incapable of "getting" anything]

enuff!!!

You got us good there. You really got us.

But I get you. You've just got to get everybody to get "get".

Perhaps we haven't gotten there yet. But we'll get there eventually.

Me, I've got to get going and get on with what I've got to do before I get driven crazy

Really? You should play squash against me, then you'll see squash balls get missed on an embarrassingly regular basis.

It's funny how prepositions cause such confusion in English, especially for speakers of certain languages, since natives learn these seemingly by osmosis. The usage is less arbitrary that it would appear, but the rules are a bit opaque. Both in and at can be used to describe time and place and it's the context in which they are used that determines which is the appropriate one to be used.

In the first instance, 'in' clearly indicates a place since you can be 'in' a city, not 'at' a city. The second sentence is a bit ambiguous since, you wouldn't ever say, "I was at Chicago", for example. You would say, "I was in Chicago, at the train station, on track 5."

Reading grammarian dissertations on the subject of these troublesome prepositions might help, but what will help most is to read English books/novels, etc., of a known high calibre.

Grammar or use? Grammar aside, the first is more UK and the second is almost exclusively US in terms of use. American English tends to favor lazy use by dropping unnecessary words, especially in conversation although, in my own observations, the UK isn't terribly far behind anymore. Both have essentially the same meaning.

This is not strictly true.

You can use got without have if it is the past tense of the verb to get (which can have a plethora of meanings depending on the context).

For example : You lucky thing, you got a new Porsche for Christmas.(received in this case)

What did he get with the money I gave him? He got a new bike. (bought in this case)

To get is frequently used without have when used as a phrasel verb in conjunction with a preposition. eg to get up, to get on, to get down etc etc

Get over it people, and get on with what you've got to do

You're right I didn't ask him for help though, in fairness, the OP addressed his question to speakers of English without qualifying which particular brand of English he'd like (to have gotten?)