Yes, it pinged off the other guy but the shot was on target and would have caused problems for the keeper. I just don't think you should be taking food out of the mouth of Torreira, that's all.
Yes, it pinged off the other guy but the shot was on target and would have caused problems for the keeper. I just don't think you should be taking food out of the mouth of Torreira, that's all.
It was going wide - if it was on target it would have been given to himQuote:
Originally Posted by eastgermanautos
Stupid rule. By that logic, if a shot is on target and is deflected wise, a goal should be awarded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda
It is a stupid rule. If the attacking player hadn't taken the shot, there wouldn't be anything to deflect, so it should be given to the attacker regardless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
Own goals should only be awarded when the defending team scores against itself with little or no input from the opposition (the classic Lee Dixon-type own goal, if you like).
So if a shot is going wide and an attacker deflects it then the original shooter should be given the goal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Yes, although by awarding goals for off target shots you are also gonna end up encouraging really **** players to keep shooting, as they know their ****ness might be rewarded. You could end up with someone like Danny Wellbeck winning the golden boot. 🙁
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
No, because the as any two-year-old would know the accreditation of a goal has absolutely no effect on the score. What you are suggesting is outside the laws of the game and would deeply change it. It matters no a jot that GG may have got a touch to Eddie Kelly's shot in 71 or Sunderland may have beaten Talbot to the ball in 79. It changes nothing that these goals may have been given to the wrong men. It does matter that the ball was 95 million miles over the line before being crossed in for the Newcastle equaliser in the 1932 Cup final or Stephane "Two Keepers" Henchoz smashed the ball off the line with his hand in 2001.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
Unless the deflection is deliberate, yes. After all, intent is taken into account in other areas of the laws, why not in the question of goalscoring*?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokster
*Yes, yes, I know who scores isn't a question as far as the laws are concerned, since it doesn't actually matter.
Umm, I was only joking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda
I think we should regard that as a reward for effort. After all, we want our special brethren to get something out of the game, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
I think you should stick to sport(s) you know something about....Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
I'm sure you were. I needed a rant this morning thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
You could at least try and present a half-decent counter-argument, p. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokster
Something deflected for a throw, in your rules wouldn't always be awarded to the team who didn't touch it lastQuote:
Originally Posted by Burney
I
Yes, but there is no requirement to attribute responsibility for throw-ins to an individual, so you're not really comparing apples and apples, are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokster
Rightly or wrongly, the authorities feel the need to attribute goals to individuals. In itself this is somewhat ludicrous in a team sport, but given that it is the case, there should be some logic to the awarding of goals. Clearly the last attacking player to make a deliberate attempt on goal is the prime mover in the scoring of that goal (regardless of any subsequent accidental touches) and should therefore get the credit.
I agree 100%. One point of order, Georgie ****ing Graham did not touch that ball, no matter what he says and Eddie Kelly was the first super-sub in a Cup Final.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda