jw1739 Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 Technical question so that I keep my records in order. As far as I can see our second goal against Wellington is being debited against Wellington as an own goal to the unfortunate Glen Moss, rather than credited to Harry Novillo. (Incidentally, stretching out our list of goalscorers for the season!) I'm assuming that to be because the ball struck the post and was on its way out again before it rebounded off Moss. I have credited it the goal to Novillo. Novillo's shot was actually deflected off a defender before it struck the post. If it had gone in, would the goal have been an og or credited to Novillo? Or would the assessment have depended on opinion as to whether the shot would have gone in or not without the deflection? Finally, a hypothetical. If that had been a penalty taken by Harry N. in a penalty shoot-out and the same scenario occurred (ball hit post, rebounded, hit Moss and gone back over the goal line) then I contend that the goal would have stood (because it had not gone out of play until it finally crossed the line). Over to all you experts out there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenSeater Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 The official Hyundai A-League match report has it down as an own goal to Glen Moss so I guess he takes credit, a bit harsh on Harry for me. If it was just deflected off the defender it would have stood as Novillo's goal as it was on target. As for the shootout scenario, if the ball crosses the line at any point before the referee records it as a miss it is a scored penalty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomby Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 Who cares? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesla Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) Technically it should be an own goal as it wasn't going in. But it's harsh on Novillo. Edited May 4, 2015 by Tesla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofhearts Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 The goal should of defenetly been credited to Harry. He was able to calculate perfectly the angle and trajectory he needed to kick the ball into Ben Sigmund in order for it to hit him then hit the post. He was also able to calculate the angle of the rebound of the ball off the post and how it would hit the back of Glen moss who he also correctly predicted would dive and miss the original ball. Genius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murfy1 Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) Technically it should be an own goal as it wasn't going in. But it's harsh on Novillo. Agree with this. Technically an OG, going off the common interpretations of an own goal. But it's pretty harsh on Novillo. If he doesn't roll the dice and take a shot, which was well enough struck to cause Wellington's defence a lot of bother, then the goal of course doesn't happen. That's why it often doesn't pay to just read the headlines of matches, 'Melbourne City 2 (Kennedy, Moss OG) - Wellington Phoenix 0', because the headlines often obscure what happened. For all intents and purposes it's Novillo's goal IMO. Edited May 4, 2015 by Murfy1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herman Cain Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 More importantly, can we add Glen Moss to our already record-breaking list of individual goalscorers for the season? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahanga Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 Technical question so that I keep my records in order. As far as I can see our second goal against Wellington is being debited against Wellington as an own goal to the unfortunate Glen Moss, rather than credited to Harry Novillo. (Incidentally, stretching out our list of goalscorers for the season!) I'm assuming that to be because the ball struck the post and was on its way out again before it rebounded off Moss. I have credited it the goal to Novillo. Novillo's shot was actually deflected off a defender before it struck the post. If it had gone in, would the goal have been an og or credited to Novillo? Or would the assessment have depended on opinion as to whether the shot would have gone in or not without the deflection? Finally, a hypothetical. If that had been a penalty taken by Harry N. in a penalty shoot-out and the same scenario occurred (ball hit post, rebounded, hit Moss and gone back over the goal line) then I contend that the goal would have stood (because it had not gone out of play until it finally crossed the line). Over to all you experts out there... Haven't read what others say but you only get a deflected goal "if it was on target". If it hits the post and comes back it's not on target apparently. Remember wielarts goal (in Wellington?) became an own goal for the same reason. So bad luck to both Harry and Moss, it's an own goal, which is what I was muttering as soon as I saw the replay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jw1739 Posted May 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 Thanks for the replies. I've amended our list of goalscorers, so unfortunately Harry N. goes back to two goals, and "Own Goal" is added to our impressive list of individual goalscorers. Just as an interesting aside, I'd have said that when I was playing an own goal would be debited to a player only if that player had been actually trying to actively play the ball (e.g. defensive header, or backpass to the GK, that went astray); deflections and rebounds etc. were regarded as accidental and the goal would go to the player making the "active" contact with the ball. Which is Murf's point above. Of course, that was a very long time ago... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moops Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 goal, Novilo struck it, created it, it's like a deflection, Moss had no idea what was happening, his arm just got in the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrillhouse Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 stupid rule, should be novillo's pointless but mabil's goal could be questioned then too as young got a big hand on it and it went in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moops Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 Agree, should be goal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HEARTinator Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 Who cares? Harry cares Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommykins Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 I think its Argentina that has an incredibly harsh stance on OG in their domestic league. If it takes any kind of noticeable deflection then its usually considered an OG. In this case I think it goes down as a good shot from Harry and an own goal to Glenn Moss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahanga Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 Who cares? Harry cares Moss cares. Yeah it's a bit silly, but there you go. Also the news reports on SEN of an "own goal" don't do it justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rass Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 Didn't Moss originally touch it onto the post, directly after the first deflection? It then rebounded back off the post, into Moss and then into the net. Therefore i would say it was a shot on target and hence a goal. IIRC, it was that first touch of Moss that made it different to when Weilart hit the underside of the bar last year against them, which then hit Moss and went in. That was an own goal because the original shot missed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malloy Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 Own goal. /Thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falastur Posted May 5, 2015 Report Share Posted May 5, 2015 Perhaps we can institute the RAF's method of scoring kills during WW2, where every pilot who claimed a kill got an equal share in it, so if three pilots all claimed the final blow then they would be awarded a third of a kill. Novillo goes up to 2 1/3 goals for the season, Moss gets a third of an own goal, and the defender who caused the initial deflection can get a third of an own goal too, just for good measure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonyboozeadams Posted May 5, 2015 Report Share Posted May 5, 2015 Perhaps we can institute the RAF's method of scoring kills during WW2, where every pilot who claimed a kill got an equal share in it, so if three pilots all claimed the final blow then they would be awarded a third of a kill. Novillo goes up to 2 1/3 goals for the season, Moss gets a third of an own goal, and the defender who caused the initial deflection can get a third of an own goal too, just for good measure. What about the post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonyboozeadams Posted May 5, 2015 Report Share Posted May 5, 2015 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.