I may be exposing my ignorance here, but I don't understand why Nguyen was credited with the goal in the Montreal v New England match last night. I thought the ball was deflected off of the cross bar and then off of Ricketts' leg and back into the goal. Isn't that an own-goal on Ricketts?
Could have been a magic ball, spun midflight, missing the keeper and went in on its own, or there could have been a second shooter. Don't know, ask the Warren commision...
This should help explain it. http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mencompwc/51/97/89/fs-301_06a_fwc-own-goal.pdf "Shots that are on target and touch a defender or rebound from the goal frame and bounce off a defender or goalkeeper are not considered own goals" I am not sure this is followed consistently around the world. FIFA has guidelines but own goals do not fall under the Laws of the Game so each scorer can still have his own interpretation I think.
Thanks! That makes no logical sense to me, but my opinion doesn't matter. I wonder if that rule had been changed, because I thought, in the past, that this wasn't the case. (of course, I'm obviously too lazy to try to look it up myself)
It's not a rule. How goals are scored is not part of the Laws of the Game. FIFA only provides guidelines. I believe there is still some interpretation that goes on because I do not think this is scored consistently around the world.
I think we should do own goals like in hockey. For those who don't know, in the event of an own goal in hockey the goal is credited to the person on the offense who last touched the puck. I know at least when I play I count those goals for myself .
I've always thought that some of the goals tabbed as OGs should have given credit to the attacker for placing the ball in a dangerous position and some goals are more OGs than anything. This is one of the latter. To me Landon Donovan's cross that went in against Portugal was as much a goal as this. However, from what I know of the rules, OG's are awarded as a matter of intent of the attacker playing the ball. If it was a shot that was deflected in the goal, then it's awarded to the shooter, but if it was a pass or cross, that's deflected, then it's an OG. So it's all about how the play was interpreted. Nguyen's goal was scored on a legitimate shot, but it was clearly not on frame. (E2A- MLSFan123 cleared things up there) Personally, I agree, they should just credit all goals to the last attacker who touched the ball since, much of the time, they do alot more work than many actual goal-scorers do to put the ball in position to go in the net. But soccer/football is a sport that is more averse to change than any other and that includes how it keeps statistics. It's like how baseball and hockey were in this country until the mid-90s when they modernized. In football, much of the world still doesn't keep stats for assists officially. Some clubs do, but then only for internal benefit.
I'm pretty sure that they don't use shot/cross criteria for awarding goals vs own goals. If a shot is clearly off target, but gets deflected into the goal, I've seen it ruled an own goal. I agree with you, though. I think the goals should be awarded to the last attacker and own goals should only be awarded in very rare circumstances (like when an unpressured defender makes an errant back-pass that scores).
You should try and credit the player with the goal, an own goal should be really last resort, it's better to try and give credit to the player if possible. Unless it's blatent or like a huge deflection you gotta give it to the player.
I dunno.. Considering a frame is what surrounds an opening, isn't it more accurate to say Nguyen's goal was on frame, but not on goal?
A shot that hits the post or the bar and bounces either back onto the field or out of play isn't counted towards a team's SOG total, no? In that case, this was an own goal - Nguyen's shot wasn't on goal.
That's what I would have thought... but it has been officially scored as a goal: http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-07-18-mtl-v-ne/stats
Should've have been an OG. I'd love to give credit to the player if possible especially on a shot like that but that shot was coming way out from the goal, it cannoned off the bar & was coming directly away from the goal at high speed, would never have gone in if hadn’t hit Rickets, when the touch from the opposition player is that decisive it has to be an OG.
I'm not certain for the rules in soccer, but I know for ice hockey that the posts are not considered as part of the goal. A shot on goal is a shot that is either stopped by the goaltender or goes into the net. Anything else is simply off-frame. The theory is that if the net were self-sustaining (if it were just simply standing on its own without assistance from the posts), that the shot would go wide.
OK..., What the hell? Le Toux sends in a curving free kick that is actually on-goal. Kai Kamara tries to clear it, and it goes in the net. This is ruled an own-goal while Nguyen's shot that is not going in is credited to the attacking player. This makes no sense at all.
That actually should have been credited to Le Toux. The problem is that the ruling on what is and isn't an own goal is very subjectively determined despite it's rather straight forward definition. I almost wish that they'd just hold off on determining the questionable goals until the end of the season so that they can all be determined side-by-side using the same criteria. This is not the only time this season I've seen goals called og's when they probably should have been awarded to the shooter.