Own (Freddy) Goal?

[kurgen99]

I was just watching a clip on MLS.net. Freddy took a shot from the left wing and he scored, but the only DC goal was an own goal by Corey Gibbs?
From the replay, it looks like only the goalie touched it?

Somebody want to explain this to me?

[Sanguine]

I was just watching a clip on MLS.net. Freddy took a shot from the left wing and he scored, but the only DC goal was an own goal by Corey Gibbs?
From the replay, it looks like only the goalie touched it?

Somebody want to explain this to me?

Freddy wasn't shooting, he was crossing. The defender deflected into the goal.

[Jabinho]

Freddy wasn't shooting, he was crossing. The defender deflected into the goal.
I'll have to look again as it sure looked like a shot to me the 1st (and only) time I saw it.. A nice shot at that..I thought it was a candidate to be changed from an own goal to a Freddy goal if it was sent to the Committee for Dubious Goals.. ;)

[URwormfood]

Watching the reply of the game...looked like a shot on goal to me....that was deflected off keeper...but if you break out the microscope and the zoom...and the slow motion....and the freakin freeze-frame.......you see it could have been a cross....a shot on goal...a tip off of defender then miss handle by goalie.......a UFO......a weapon of mass destruction....a unexplained event....John Kerry tossing his war medals over the fence....a second gunman in the grassy knoll...? :confused:


Anyway you look at the only goal DC had in that game....It was created by ADU that night....so.....if no credit for the goal....at least a credit for the Assist....


~~~Worm~~~

[Th4119]

That play was nothing but an own goal. Good for the league for not giving Freddy credit on a goal that he technically didn't score just to pad his stats.

[Sundevil9]

That play was nothing but an own goal. Good for the league for not giving Freddy credit on a goal that he technically didn't score just to pad his stats.


It league could have given Freddy some kind of Gretzky credit (I swear that guy used to get assists if he was merely in the building when his team scored).

The TV Angles on it are kinda funny, but looking at the angles, Cassar would need to be the worst keeper this side of Tom Presthus to put that in off of his hands. And you can see Gibbs flick his head.....maybe we should trade for Gibbs and make him a striker. :D

[MikeLastort2]

I just watched the replay on the MLS web site. I'll say the same thing that I said when I saw it on CSN on Saturday night. I don't think anyone touched that ball but Freddy and Cassar. Gibbs tried to head it away, but it doesn't look like he actually connected with it.

[mcontento]

I like the NHL way better where the last offensive player to touch the ball gets credit for the goal. They can always still put (og) after the credit, but in most cases of the own goal it was caused by the offensive player's shot/cross.

[bofahey]

I just watched the replay on the MLS web site. I'll say the same thing that I said when I saw it on CSN on Saturday night. I don't think anyone touched that ball but Freddy and Cassar. Gibbs tried to head it away, but it doesn't look like he actually connected with it.
Assuming that Gibbs didn't touch it: if the ball was not originally headed towards the goal when Freddy shot it, and it accidentally hit off of Cassar and went in the net, would that still qualify as an own goal, or is the rule different if it only deflects off a keeper?

I always assumed that would also be an own goal if the original shot was not headed towards goal, but I don't know the technical rule.

[ignatz]

The NHL approach sounds sensible. This goal was all Freddy -- he beat two defenders to get the ball off. I think there's a distinction between the OG that is a misplayed ball and the sort of "bang-bang" of this situation.

[elconejito]

i think the rule is worded something like "if you didn't kick it in the net it wouldn't have gone in".

so for example, if freddy was shooting (crossing, whatever) and the ball was going in anyway but a defender or keeper deflects it and it still goes in its a regular goal. If on the other hand, he was shooting wide and it deflects off a defender or keper and it goes in, then its an own-goal.

not 100% sure, but i think thats how it works....

[elconejito]

also, i do think t hit gibbs. the replay is fairly inconclusive since it happened so fast, but just from the angle the ball was going when Freddy struck it (away from goal) and cassar was moving away from goal to punch it out. Since Gibbs was moving towards the goal, it would have been very easy for him to put that on goal. I really dont know how cassar would have been able to flub that one into his own net, either by accident or on purpose...

[superdave]

Assuming that Gibbs didn't touch it: if the ball was not originally headed towards the goal when Freddy shot it, and it accidentally hit off of Cassar and went in the net, would that still qualify as an own goal.
Yes, that would still be an own goal.

[sch2383]

When the ball went it, I assumed the league was going to give it to Freddy, well, because he is Freddy. He earned that goal, but from what I saw Saturday night, it should be counted as an own goal.

[BroonAleMagpie]

If Freddy's shot was an own goal for Gibbs (and I really have no opinion either way, since it didn;t look to be as if the ball touched either Gibbs of Cassar, but it couldn't naturally have taken the path it did if it didn't hit *someone* after it left Freddy's foot) why did the one Dallas goal (by ?Davis?) not get credited as an owl goal by Namoff? If it hadn't hit his shin/ankle, no way it was going in...

[GDopplerXT]

Figure I may as well chime in... I think it was most definitely a cross from Freddy. Cassar was lunging/diving forward to intercept the cross when Gibbs stepped in and redirected it. You can see this fairly clearly if you watch the original play (not the replay from the funny angle.) Cassar is coming out for the ball and it gets redirected (off Gibbs) before it reaches him.

Also one of our guys (I can't tell who) is in front of goal, and it very much appears that Freddy was aiming the ball for that player. The only way it could have gone in goal is if it was redirected by someone. And that happened to be a Dallas player.

So IMO the 'own goal' ruling was totally correct.

[Th4119]

The only thing Freddy came close to "earning" on that play would be an assist. He didn't shoot, never looked to shoot, and was trying to cross the ball when it hit Gibbs and went in. Simple as that. Since you don't get an assist on someone else's own goal, Adu seems to be SOL on this one.

[DutchFootballRulez]

I was thinking the same thing "Its a shame you don't get an assist from an Own Goal."

[Beethovieff]

If Freddy's shot was an own goal for Gibbs (and I really have no opinion either way, since it didn;t look to be as if the ball touched either Gibbs of Cassar, but it couldn't naturally have taken the path it did if it didn't hit *someone* after it left Freddy's foot) why did the one Dallas goal (by ?Davis?) not get credited as an owl goal by Namoff? If it hadn't hit his shin/ankle, no way it was going in...

Maybe, maybe not. The ball was directed towards goal, the defender blocked it, it popped up and over Perkins into the net. I think you need to give the shooter, Davis, the benefit of the doubt on this one. It was from a good angle and you gotta give credit to guys who shoot through traffic because you never know when a screen or deflection will wrong foot the keeper.

[AndyMead]

If Freddy's shot was an own goal for Gibbs (and I really have no opinion either way, since it didn;t look to be as if the ball touched either Gibbs of Cassar, but it couldn't naturally have taken the path it did if it didn't hit *someone* after it left Freddy's foot) why did the one Dallas goal (by ?Davis?) not get credited as an owl goal by Namoff? If it hadn't hit his shin/ankle, no way it was going in...

This post is just sour grapes.

http://www.artthrob.co.za/01july/images/grapes01a.jpg