Fulham Yourself If You Don't Believe It: Dempsey VI

Ok, you're back to the FIFA guidance prepared for a WC that may or may not be the standard used by the dubious goals committee.

Actually, a Guardian article from '06 articulates the "rule" that the DGC purports to use when determining whether or not there is an own goal.

"As a rule, if the initial attempt is goalbound it is credited to the player making the goal attempt. However if the deflection means that a wayward effort results in a goal then it is attributed to the player who had the last definitive touch of the ball."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2006/aug/23/theknowledge.sport

You'll note that this somewhat vague "rule" does not include the specific "rebound from the goal frame" language that FIFA felt necessary to explicitly include in their guidelines. In Clint's case, given the vague DGC language I could make a colorable argument for either an OG or a CD goal. And I admit my gut tells me this will be an own goal, because I seem to have a vague recollection of OG's being credited in the PL for exactly the situation we're discussing here (shot on target, tipped to post, rebound off keeper...though I must agree with an earlier poster that I'm not completely convinced there actually was a touch by the GK), although I freely admit that my recollection could be failing me.

 

This thread may just have to join the Ralston Line and Saga of Brad Friedel in the BigSoccer Hall of Fame.

 

Can someone explain the math to me?

 

Well that's not my interpretation of the event, I'm just needlessly parsing the evidence. So yes, in City Dave's example it says that if a player attempts to block an off-target shot and misses and the ball rebounds off the post, into them, and then into goal it's scored as an own goal. The key differences between that example and the Dempsey goal is that the shot was on target and touched, so the example used to support ruling it an own goal is not an operative precedent. I would argue that if those two factors are reversed then the ruling of an own goal should also be reversed.

but

Or is specifically a rejection of and. "Or" means that one of two propositions is true, "and" means both are true. What I'd argue is that in this case "or" does not entirely disqualify the ruling's applicability to Dempsey's goal. The key part of KALM's example is that the shot is on target. What appears to be the logic behind the rule is that without the defender making a play on the ball a goal would be the result, therefore if a defender makes an unsuccessful attempt to make a save, by playing the ball, they should not be penalized for failing.

In Dempsey's case the goalie makes an attempt at a save, his attempt results in changing the trajectory the ball takes to get into the goal but doesn't stop it from becoming one. His deliberate attempt to play the ball results in contact but not a successful save. His actions did not cause a goal, it delayed it.

I think that if an on target shot is touched by one defender, through one deliberate act, and it goes in it should always be ruled a goal.

Jonathan Carlos Elliot!

 

I've seen own goals credited where shots appeared on target and deflected off a defender. Maybe they were reversed by the mysterious DGC though.

Based on the Fifa guidelines I'd agree with afgrijselijkheid that it's a CD goal, but I agree with you we have no idea the guidelines the DGC uses.

I think the best solution is to get afgrijselijkheid on the DGC pronto.

 

Just in case you were responding to me saying "everyone knows who is responsible for the goal" let me clarify...

I could care less who gets statistical credit for the goal (BTW, I don't see the keeper tipping the ball onto the bar, but all I've seen are crappy internet feeds and I don't car enough to watch it more in hi def).

What I do know, and what Jol knows, and all of Dempsey's teammates and Fulham's fans and even the people here is this...

Dempsey ripped a nasty shot, the ball ended up going in, it was a goal for Fulham. The goal happened cause of Dempsey. Whether it was because of the rebound or the rebound was because of a save, it went in because of his shot. To me THAT is what is important.

Oh, and it was the winning goal, yeah?

 

For me this is much less "dubious" than his goal off of Green at the WC. In a case like this where there was nothing the keeper could possibly do to avoid the rebound off his back, he's a third post as far as I'm concerned.

 

Not necessarily, unless made explicit.

 

Ah, yes, I see your point; however, the move from a structuralist account in which the term "own goal" is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brings the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marks a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.

 

Well... I guess that settles that then.

 

^^^What he said!

 

That...and knowing how many existentialists it takes to change a lightbulb.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Two. One to change the lightbulb and one to observe how the lightbulb symbolizes an incandescent beacon of subjectivity in a netherworld of Cosmic Nothingness.

 

Yes, but what would Jameson have to say about this? Oh wait, wrong forum.

Or a PhD in literary theory....sigh...anyone hiring?

 

Soooooo any actual news on Dempsey?

 

I know a guy who knows a guy whose cousin says her university might be hiring somebody to teach a 7:7 load in comp, lit theory, creative writing, and strawberry picking. But it's for an unaccredited online college. And an adjunct position. And unpaid for the first year. And they already have 900 applications.

 

Yes,apparently he's a meme.


Or a mime.

 

At least its intellectually off topic. If anything that goal may motivate Dempsey to grab a few others. He just keeps getting better. Everyone is nit picking his statistics for him. I love it!

 

These guys know a little bit about nothing.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5J_kao6mwA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjh-nFCfp2s[/ame]

 

Must spread some rep...

Gotta love those Nihilists, nobody else will.

 

He did it so we argue about it.

 

They care about nothing.

 

I want the last two minutes of my life back.

 

Assuming Wikipedia is correct, the next league match Clint Dempsey plays will give him more appearances for Fulham in the Premiership era than any other player. According to Wikipedia, he and Steed Malbranque are tied at 172.

 

statue for Dempsey?