paulwantsapint Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 So after Pelle has been denied his matchball by an unwanted og who else has suffered the same fate Egil Ostenstad v Man Utd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 So after Pelle has been denied his matchball by an unwanted og who else has suffered the same fate Egil Ostenstad v Man Utd Has that been confirmed? I thought the ball was going in anyway, therefore it'd be given to Pelle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 I still maintain that's Pelle's goal. Maybe one of the defenders touches did take it away from the goal for a fraction of a second but that shot was sneaking inside of the post even after Mannone's 'save'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kokakole Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 They give goals for deflected shots that would have likely been saved except for the deflection, but they don't give Pelle a goal for this? It seems a bit odd. I think the ruling should hinge on whether the ball would have gone in regardless of the opposing player's intervention. In this case, it appears clear that it would have snuck in over the line - and I don't think Mannone was getting there either. So Pelle should be awarded a goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farawaysaint Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 They give goals for deflected shots that would have likely been saved except for the deflection, but they don't give Pelle a goal for this? It seems a bit odd. I think the ruling should hinge on whether the ball would have gone in regardless of the opposing player's intervention. In this case, it appears clear that it would have snuck in over the line - and I don't think Mannone was getting there either. So Pelle should be awarded a goal. From what I heard it won't be given as Mannone took all the pace off the ball and it was the defender's momentum that put it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kokakole Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 From what I heard it won't be given as Mannone took all the pace off the ball and it was the defender's momentum that put it in. If that's the case, fair enough. My impression from watching the replay (once) was that it was going in regardless, but I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Durman Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 Defender stopped it going in with his left foot only to kick it in with his right. Pelle should have scored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 Shearer said last night that it was a strikers goal and should be Pelle's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 Shearer said last night that it was a strikers goal and should be Pelle's whilst i agree. I hope pelle is given the goal Cant help to think he wont. Bridcutt stopped the ball and kicked it in within one movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesfp1 Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 It was a poor shot to be fair. Should have smashed it top right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 One of the clearest own goals ever, I really don't know what some people on here are on. The keeper saved the initial shot. It squirmed out from him and the defender took the ball forward and then got the ball caught up in his feet and put the ball back over the line. Comedy defending by Bridcutt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adysaint Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 I thought the rule was that if the initial shot is on target its his goal regardless of what happens afterwards. Ostenstads was going wide before Neville slid in so that was never his. Pelle should get that. I'd be very surprised if he doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nta786 Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 I'm fairly sure it is Pelle's goal- one of the angles on MOTD showed that even if Bridcutt wasn't there, Mannone would have parried his save into the goal- it was a poor save and would've went in regardless. It might just be me though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasiak-9- Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 Defender stopped it going in with his left foot only to kick it in with his right. Yeah this is the reason it is an own goal. If the defender had only got one touch on the ball then yes, it would be Pelle's goal on account of 1) The ball going in were it left alone 2) The ball travelling towards goal at every point in its flight since leaving Pelle's boot. However, if you look at the goal closely Bridcutt actually clears it off the line, only to kick it onto his standing foot, so essentially its as much of an own goal as if he had controlled the ball, dribbled away from goal, and then spun around and blasted into his own net. Pretty clear-cut I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lets B Avenue Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 Ostenstads was going wide before Neville slid in so that was never his. No it wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Dad Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 Is Pelle or SFC going to appeal the OG? If they do, it will go to 'the goals panel' or whatever its called. I might be wrong but its worth a try. Without the defenders intervention I think it would have gone in. I know its not clear cut but surely its worth an appeal? I might be wrong about the existance of the 'panel' but I think I read about it somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 Whilst Pelle would want it a definite decision is needed for those who might a placed a load of money on a hat trick, it was on target and despite the GK an defenders failed efforts it went in. I agree that if it was going wide then a clear cut OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tajjuk Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 Should be Pelle's goal, keeper didn't save it just took the sting off it, the ball was rolling in anyway if the defender hadn't tried to clear it. He fudged up his clearance but take him away you have Pelle's shot not saved enough by Manone to prevent the ball rolling in, thus logically it should be Pelle's goal. OG's are just when the ball wasn't ever going in the first place, if Manone had saved the ball and it had stopped dead then yes, OG, but the ball was still continuing on it's original path towards goal and would have gone in anyway even without the defender's intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 I'm coming round to the opinion that it's Pellè's goal. True, it was hit strongly enough but it squirmed out under the keeper and then rattled between Bridcutt's legs before creeping over the line. If Bridcutt had been standing on the line and the ball had gone into the goal via the inside of both legs then there'd be no argument. Ostenstad's shot was going in anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 Should be Pelle's goal, keeper didn't save it just took the sting off it, the ball was rolling in anyway if the defender hadn't tried to clear it. He fudged up his clearance but take him away you have Pelle's shot not saved enough by Manone to prevent the ball rolling in, thus logically it should be Pelle's goal. OG's are just when the ball wasn't ever going in the first place, if Manone had saved the ball and it had stopped dead then yes, OG, but the ball was still continuing on it's original path towards goal and would have gone in anyway even without the defender's intervention. But the important point is that there were two touches from the defender, one that did stop/clear the shot and another to knock it back in - therefore, technically, it is an own goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 But the important point is that there were two touches from the defender, one that did stop/clear the shot and another to knock it back in - therefore, technically, it is an own goal. Hmm... Goes to clear a ball that was going in anyway and the ball rattles between his legs. Not in the same class as Vergini's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tajjuk Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 But the important point is that there were two touches from the defender, one that did stop/clear the shot and another to knock it back in - therefore, technically, it is an own goal. I dont think the number of touches is relevant when they were part of the same process. Ball is going in, defender attempts to clear, fails to do so and ball ends up as goal in anyway. Take him out of the equation and the ball is still going in, I've seen situations where strikers have dinked the ball over the keeper but with not much power, the defender rushes desperately back to clear and slides to hook the ball away before it crosses the line but ends up missing and basically just bundles the ball into the net touching his body several times and those arent called OGs. Basically I think an OG should be decided on the question - Would the ball have gone in without the defender's touch? If the answer is Yes then it's not an OG, if it's not then it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjwills Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 But the important point is that there were two touches from the defender, one that did stop/clear the shot and another to knock it back in - therefore, technically, it is an own goal. As much as I would like give it to Pelle, I unfortunately agree with the abovementioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 I dont think the number of touches is relevant when they were part of the same process. Ball is going in, defender attempts to clear, fails to do so and ball ends up as goal in anyway. Take him out of the equation and the ball is still going in, I've seen situations where strikers have dinked the ball over the keeper but with not much power, the defender rushes desperately back to clear and slides to hook the ball away before it crosses the line but ends up missing and basically just bundles the ball into the net touching his body several times and those arent called OGs. Basically I think an OG should be decided on the question - Would the ball have gone in without the defender's touch? If the answer is Yes then it's not an OG, if it's not then it isn't. You're missing the point. And you've made something up with the term "the same process", that doesn't mean anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwsaint Posted 19 October, 2014 Share Posted 19 October, 2014 So after Pelle has been denied his matchball by an unwanted og who else has suffered the same fate Egil Ostenstad v Man Utd MLT vs Wimbledon at Dellhurst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpbury Posted 20 October, 2014 Share Posted 20 October, 2014 Does anyone actually know if there is a panel - these opinions are immaterial if a decision is actually made by someone, somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hasper57saint Posted 20 October, 2014 Share Posted 20 October, 2014 So what some people are saying is that if the keeper gets his hand to the ball and it crosses the line it's an own-goal?? Corks for example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plastic Posted 20 October, 2014 Share Posted 20 October, 2014 I think the point here is that from the replay, it appears the defender changed the direction of the ball (so it would have been saved off the line) and then knocked it with his ankle, which put it back on goal again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 20 October, 2014 Share Posted 20 October, 2014 So what some people are saying is that if the keeper gets his hand to the ball and it crosses the line it's an own-goal?? Corks for example? No, no-one is saying that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 October, 2014 Share Posted 20 October, 2014 Does anyone actually know if there is a panel - these opinions are immaterial if a decision is actually made by someone, somewhere. It used to meet on an ad-hoc requirement. This from 2006:ttp://www.theguardian.com/football/2006/aug/23/theknowledge.sport "As a rule, if the initial attempt is goalbound it is credited to the player making the goal attempt," explained a Premier League spokesman. "However if the deflection means that a wayward effort results in a goal then it is attributed to the player who had the last definitive touch of the ball." The committee seems to have met earlier this month: http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/sam-allardyce-revels-in-absolutely-brilliant-west-ham-win-against-liverpool-9746424.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 20 October, 2014 Share Posted 20 October, 2014 Bit harsh to not give it to Pelle methinks after watching it again this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus Reigned Posted 20 October, 2014 Share Posted 20 October, 2014 Without doubt the goal should go to Pelle; the fact that he also happens to be in my Dream Team is a complete coincidence....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now