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

link to said goal?

 

How is this vague or open to multiple interpretations?

"Shots that are on target (i.e. goal-bound) and touch a defender or rebound from the goal frame and bounce off a defender or goalkeeper are not considered as own goals."


This exact sentence has been in every single linked pro reference I've seen. They all say the same things.

 

I never said the FIFA guideline was vague, now did I?

However, that FIFA guidance is the only "rule" I've seen cited to which includes the "rebound from the goal frame" language.

 

Will the discussion of the goal/not a goal continue much longer?

I really hope Clint brings his Peak form with him to the match against Italy.

BTW Fulham back up to 12th with 15 games to go.

 

Sorry, we got mixed wires. I was referring to the other sentence. This "rebound from the goal frame" language is not from a FIFA rule book. It is from a picture example display showing possible variances. The sentence I referred to is the verbatim rule.

 

What other sentence? I'm confused. The "rebound from the goal frame" language appears in the FIFA fact sheet which was cited to earlier in the thread. I don't believe I've seen anyone cite language from a FIFA "rule book" (or am I missing something).

 

Maybe this could drive a re-interpretation of what constitutes an On-goal. One could argue the Goal keeper's effort to make a save was negated by his inability to keep the goal from eventually going in without intervention by another player.

As someone else has suggested, Dempsey's "goal" (?) against England was actually deflected by the keeper and sent into a different direction, but then he flubbed the ball and allowed it to trickle in...... just I thought, I'd have to look at the England goal again.

 

As a former keeper myself, I'd say that its a Dempsey goal.

The keeper attempted to make a play on the ball, made contact, and wasn't able to keep the ball from coming off the post in a non-threatening manner.

The keeper was unable to make the save.

He was not able to make the save despite getting a finger on it.

Shot. Missed save. Goal. Goal Dempsey.

 

What better BS poster to settle the controversy!

I mean, if "fingersave" says it's a goal, how could we possibly disagree? "D

 

jeez...how many pages devoted to whether this was an autogoal?

Can we move on? Everybody knows who is responsible for the goal...

 

Really? You're 100% sure that if the keeper had never touched it that it would be a goal?

 

Is that even in question? Even the EPL has scored it as a shot on goal with a save.

And an own goal. And an assist (??) to Dempsey. All for the same shot on goal, calling it everything but a Dempsey goal.

 

I think so- the keeper was under the ball and touched it up (any other direction would be physically impossible- he wasn't pushing the ball straight left, right or down). The ball, therefore, deflected up but still came down off the bar. It's a pretty straight-forward deduction that the ball would have gone under the bar without the slight deflection up from the keeper.

 

I just couldn't find a slow replay, and at full speed I wasn't sure how much of a touch the keeper got on it. It's all a goofy semantic argument anyway. Obviously, it was Dempsey's shot that ultimately resulted in the goal. It's just the rules on this are a bit vague. They say that if the keeper touched it intentionally trying to make a play then it's an OG, but if it was accidental then it is not. The keeper's first touch was on purpose, his second was accidental. But he might not have been there to make the second touch if he hadn't have tried to play in the first place, so does that make it intentional? That's where I'm seeing the confusion.

But you're right, it doesn't really matter except for a stat count. Most of us on here just like to argue and debate if you haven't already noticed.

 

No we don't, just the people that are wrong won't shut up.

 

I just watched that six times in a row. lol Doc what's wrong with me?

 

Here's an idea for a new definitive rule moving forward: We ask the goalie which it was.

 

it looks like an own goal to me. The ball bounces off the crossbar then off the keeper then in

 

The keeper tips it into the bar. It was redirected by the keeper, hit the bar, then hit the keeper again.

So essentially it was a missed save and a goal.

 

bolded

also bolded.

In the live broadcast the color guy was very impressed with the movement of the ball so there were multiple replays showing it going left, right, left again and up and down. It was also clear that the keeper got a couple fingers on it and that before the ball was touched it's increasingly downward trajectory, due to gravity, would have put it in goal.


Your FIFA example hinges on the goalkeeper missing the save on an off-target shot. The KALM example hinges on the fact that the shot is on target. The possible problem with it is this phrase, "touch a defender or rebound from the goal frame", because in Dempsey's case the ball both touches a defender and rebounds off the crossbar and touches a defender. For a ball to be both "on goal" and to hit the frame it must either have been an on target shot that is deflected or a shot that will hit the woodwork and go in with no other human contact.

Your example applies to shots where the initial save of a shot (an off target shot that is going to deflect off the post and out) is missed and the attempt at a save is the deliberate act that causes an off-target shot to be scored. The implication of this scenario is that if the keeper touches an on-target shot then the same own goal rules don't apply.

 

Like asking a barber if you need a haircut,isn't it?

Repped.Save made,can't be a shooter's goal .The bounce back is a hard luck OG.

 

Ummm... no it isn't.

I really do not understand the over-complication, which is leading the confusion. It's very simple, one sentence. Despite tons of amusing efforts, no one has been able to cut across that one sentence to display why it should be an own goal.

For instance:

This is only a problem to those who make it one to see. Just because it says "or" does not mean both cannot happen on one incident. This is a false derived assumption. In no way does it tell us that both cannot happen on the same on-target shot. "Or" is not the rejection of "and" here.

Shot on target, caroms, not own goal. Very direct. Every single scenario looked at for how it can't be his goal is nixed by that one sentence.

 

Which one sentence is that? Where does this sentence appear?

 

Well, for starters, it appears in the post of his that I quoted (albeit abbreviated).