Skip to content
«1

Comments

  • Would be nice to see Curtis Thompson start a game.

    He's looked like he's made of the right sort of stuff in the brief opportunities he's had to date, but it would be interesting to see him across 90 minutes.

    Given you have to think that he'll be available for free in the summer its a good opportunity to find out whether he's got what it takes to play in our midfield.

    Also with Beany probably hanging up his boots this summer and Sam Saunders and Matt Bloomfield both being 34 we could probably use a younger midfield option.

  • Bit harsh on O'Nien to take away his goal from Saturday - hasn't it gone down officially as his?

  • Also I hope we see a front three of Freeman, Bayo and Tyson on Weds. Freeman and Tyson are both natural wide players who are happy to chase back and help out defensively. I thought the twenty minutes they were on the pitch together on Saturday was some of the most balanced and dominant we've looked all season.

  • Our second was the definitely an own goal.

  • Rightly or wrongly it has gone down officially as O’Nien’s goal so stats should say 9 for the season.

  • Nah

    No fake news here - own goal

  • Interested in your comment about playing Tyson and Freeman @aloysius. I am a great admirer of Nick Freeman but have tended to think of him as an understudy to Nathan Tyson. Who switched to the right when they were both playing?

  • It was Freeman on the right, Tyson on the left @micra - and it worked very well.

  • @Vital I think it was an own goal but there is argument for O’Nien’s goal and that’s what the record books show (not really any point in having top scorers if they are wrong).

  • @TheatreOfChairs Seems like you are confusing the game on Wednesday with a trial match. I think it might be quite an important end of season promotion defining game myself.
    Why not give the other goalie a chance too?

  • If the initial shot was on target (which I think it was although only seen it once) it is O'Nien's goal.

  • Re the LO9 goal, the Goalcam makes it clear it came off a defender but the general rule is surely that deflected efforts are credited to the attacker unless the ball wasn't directed at the goal?

  • It's about as clear an own goal as it gets.

    It was a hopeful cross into the box that was headed in by the defender!

  • It doesn't really matter, but not for official purposes. Just watched it again and it was about as on target as it gets. Doesn't matter if Luke was trying to hit one of the trains whizzing by.

  • @LX1 said:
    If the initial shot was on target (which I think it was although only seen it once) it is.

    Goalkeeper had it covered until the defender produced that deft flick to send it over his outstretched arms. Is that not then seen as an OG?

  • It IS a goal though, right?

  • LX1LX1
    edited March 2018

    @EwanHoosaami not for official purposes no. On target = attacker's goal. Not on target = o.g.

    The keeper could have been conducting a science experiment in the six yard box, measuring the distribution of daisies. But it would be irrelevant.

    Personally I'm crediting it to Taffy Moore

  • If the ball is on target it is given to the attacker even if the last touch is from a defending player.

  • I wasn’t there but this is an example of when being there is no advantage in terms of being able to judge the flight of the ball and the degree of deflection. I’ve seen footage from behind the goal and behind Luke O’Nien and there was a slight deflection off the defender’s head. Being on target surely cannot be the defining factor. The ball could have struck him amidships and dropped at his feet, causing him to panic and slice his clearance into the net. Now that would indeed be an own goal.

  • Agree with Micra, it's one thing when it's a "shot" that hits someone takes a slight deflection and goes in. That's obviously the striker's goal.

    But a floated cross that would have just been caught otherwise? We can hardly call that a shot anyway.

    The decision to award a goal should be the level of contribution to a goal. The defender made that a goal from nothing.

  • LX1LX1
    edited March 2018

    I would pretty much agree with what you are saying but that is the official line. I guess it is there because there are numerous grey areas where the 'level of contribution' is unknown and subjective'. So even in your amidships example @micra it would officially be not an own goal.

    Thar she blows!

  • Having seen the goal back in slow mo on the FB group, I'm not even sure that was going in. The defender completely changes the direction of the ball.

  • This is turning nasty!

  • @LX1 said:
    Thar she blows!
    Whale there you are.

  • Who cares? It’s a goal and that’s all that matters.

  • Ah but Luke is determined to reach 12 goals for the season so it matters a lot to him and I loved the smirk on his face when he said it went straight in.

  • @micra said:
    I wasn’t there but this is an example of when being there is no advantage in terms of being able to judge the flight of the ball and the degree of deflection. I’ve seen footage from behind the goal and behind Luke O’Nien and there was a slight deflection off the defender’s head. Being on target surely cannot be the defining factor. The ball could have struck him amidships and dropped at his feet, causing him to panic and slice his clearance into the net. Now that would indeed be an own goal.

    In that scenario once it drops at the defender’s feet it is no longer ‘on target’ and they are free to slice it in for a proper own goal, yes.

  • With apologies for the quality, this is what an own goal looks like:

  • Excellent - double the pain.

  • What is that chump playing at. He must have realised his face was in the way?

Sign In or Register to comment.