[kopiteinkc]

Ok, in that match yesterday the Villa defender takes a throw in back to his goalie. The goalie apparently touched the ball with his foot and it goes in. Own goal. Correct call.

If he had not touched it and the ball went straight in the goal from the throw would that have been a corner to Birmingham?

[Dr. Wankler]

Originally posted by kopiteinkc
If he had not touched it and the ball went straight in the goal from the throw would that have been a corner to Birmingham?

My guess is Villa retakes the throw-in.

[soccernutter]

Yes, the correct call would have been a corner. The ball cannot be thrown into the goal, either for or against from a throw in. The logic being that the ball was last intentionally handled and, as we all know, an intentional hand ball cannot be a goal.

In this case a corner would have been awarded since the ball went over the goal line (end line) last touched by the defending team, in accordance with the law about not allowing a goal scored directly from a throw in.

[blech]

Yes, the correct call is a corner. The throw-in is like an indirect kick. A goal cannot be scored directly. Like any indirect kick, if the ball goes into the goal without touching a second player, you essentially ignore the goalposts and award the free kick for the ball going over the goalline. Usually this will be a goal kick, since the offense has usually shot. But, where it's the defense (as in this case, or perhaps on a pass back to the goalie following an offside call), then it's a corner.

[blech]

I got to watch a replay of this game this evening. They showed the goal several times, and for the life of me I remain unconvinced that the goalie touched the ball. It sure looks like the ball just skidded under his foot. Having seen the play, I say it should have been a corner kick. But, it was a tough call as close as it was, and clearly one of the stranger goals we're going to see in the Premiere League this season.

[kevbrunton]

I thought the same thing blech. But since Eckleman didn't complain about it not being a goal, either he knows he touched it or he doesn't know it wouldn't have been a goal unless he touched it.

[Alberto]

Originally posted by kevbrunton
I thought the same thing blech. But since Eckleman didn't complain about it not being a goal, either he knows he touched it or he doesn't know it wouldn't have been a goal unless he touched it.

This is an interesting question. Did the media ask him if he touched the ball? Sometimes we give players more credit than they merit on their understanding the LOTG.

[gildarkevin]

After the game, Enckelman was quoted as saying that it should have been a corner b/c the ball didn't touch his boot.

I think he was engaging in revisionist history myself, but I'm also not going to say one way or another whether he actually touched it.

I can't recall where the referee was at the time, but he was probably pretty far away, as he probably expected the ball to move forward immediately after Enckelman's control and clearance.

[blech]

i'm sure the ref was upfield, and again it was an extremely odd looking play. also, the way enckleman ran after the ball once it got past him might have suggested that he touched the ball. he (the goalie) would have been better served to put up his hands nonchalantly to show that he didn't touch the ball. by sprinting after it, it could at least have been interpreted as guilt, although i'm guessing he was just reacting normally in chasing after a ball rolling into his own goal.

you'll recall as well that one of the field players was given a yellow card for dissent before they restarted play with a kickoff, so i'm guessing they made their best argument, but just couldn't persuade the ref that enckleman missed the ball.

[MassachusettsRef]

Pictures posted on another thread seem to indicate pretty clearly that the ref (Elleray) consluted with the AR about whether or not the keeper touched the ball. I'm guessing, as blech said, Elleray was upfield significantly (why shouldn't he be?), so, in effect, it became the AR's call. I suspect the AR did his duty and followed the ball to the goal line (this play does reinforce the importance of that, doesn't it?) and was able to tell Elleray whether the keeper touched it or not.

Anyway, here's a picture of the two officials conferring:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/3..._ellary300.jpg