10 - Lionel Messi - V6

[Horatio]

Lol, it's almost a sure goal without the deflection. Ball is going away from Lopez. He's not getting his hand on that, and even if he is, it's not enough to keep it out.

Diego would’ve stopped it if the player wasn’t there. On the other hand I think Messi was aiming to create confusion. He saw the player run and maybe tried to put it between diego and other player in hopes that they would get in eachothers way.

 

[Havesaks]

Lovely freekick

Leo's 40th goal of the season

[tw]1112032970712510466[/tw]

He will barely surpass 50-mark. Will probably get a lot of rest from now on in the league. Goal pr min/game ratio will be up there with his best seasons, but total numbers - the best parameter imo - its will just be a good season. We will never see anythin like 14/15, 11/12 and 12/12

 

[Blaugrana Bull]

Imo it was an own goal. I don't really care though.

 

[raskolnikov]

I thought the rule was, shot is on target deflection= goal, off target deflected in = no goal.

There have been countless situations where a shot was on target, defender tries to keep it out but fails and its a goal.
It officialy counts though like the bilbao one from years ago so who cares.

 

[Luftstalag14]

It was definitely a goal, the ball was swerving to the right slightly, if that Espanyol defender did not head it Diego Alves would NOT have had time to save it.

 

[Havesaks]

I thought the rule was, shot is on target deflection= goal, off target deflected in = no goal.

There have been countless situations where a shot was on target, defender tries to keep it out but fails and its a goal.
It officialy counts though like the bilbao one from years ago so who cares.

I think the rule is, if the ball is considered to go in if the player didnt touch it, its not a own goal. In this case there is doubt because we dont know if the keeper would have taken it, and in doubt the goal scorer is normally given the goal. A bit like the offside rule, when doubt, there isnt offside. But im not 100 % sure.

 

[serghei]

Diego would’ve stopped it if the player wasn’t there. On the other hand I think Messi was aiming to create confusion. He saw the player run and maybe tried to put it between diego and other player in hopes that they would get in eachothers way.

No way. Imo almost a sure goal. Diego went for it very late, and he was almost glued to the other post. He misses it by a good 30-40cm imo.The effect has it curling away from him.

 

[Ripsta]

If the first one isn't given then the Club need to kick up a huge fuss. May have bigger fish to fry but it's the fucking principle. Remember when Cristiano got a goal from a free kick when it came off of Pepe? Why was that given to Ronaldo?

It's always been a rule as far as i'm aware - if the opposition player gets the final touch on the ball it is still given to the kick taker, as long as the ball was going on target. If it was going miles wide then it's an own goal.

 

[LordLichtenstein]

There is no "if". Either it was on target or it wasn't. I don't understand why we're having this debate.

 

[evilhita666]

I think the rule is, if the ball is considered to go in if the player didnt touch it, its not a own goal. In this case there is doubt because we dont know if the keeper would have taken it, and in doubt the goal scorer is normally given the goal. A bit like the offside rule, when doubt, there isnt offside. But im not 100 % sure.

Not so sure, most of the times there have been shots that were aimed straight at the GK only to be deflected by a defender at the last moment have been awarded as goals to the striker not own goals...

 

[Havesaks]

Not so sure, most of the times there have been shots that were aimed straight at the GK only to be deflected by a defender at the last moment have been awarded as goals to the striker not own goals...

You remember an example of that?

If the distinction "on target / not on target" is deciding if its a goal / own goal, i frankly think, its quiet stupid.

 

[LordLichtenstein]

You remember an example of that?

If the distinction "on target / not on target" is deciding if its a goal / own goal, i frankly think, its quiet stupid.

How is that stupid?

 

[Onyi]

You remember an example of that?

If the distinction "on target / not on target" is deciding if its a goal / own goal, i frankly think, its quiet stupid.

It's not stupid, as it's the only objective determining factor, unlike the argument that "the keeper would've caught it if not for the defender" as that is only an unprovable assumption.

 

[Havesaks]

It's not stupid, as it's the only objective determining factor, unlike the argument that "the keeper would've caught it if not for the defender" as that is only an unprovable assumption.

Because if you make a weak shot on the goal, the keeper would have had it without problem, but a defender tries to shoot away, mishits it and it goes into the goal. Doesn't make sense to me.

It makes more sense to make judgement if the goal would have went into the goal or not - and if in doubt credit it to forward.

 

[Onyi]

Because if you make a weak shot on the goal, the keeper would have had it without problem, but a defender tries to shoot away, mishits it and it goes into the goal. Doesn't make sense to me.

It makes more sense to make judgement if the goal would have went into the goal or not - and if in doubt credit it to forward.

What is a "weak shot"? There's no objective definition for it, hence it's not a good determining factor. The argument that "the goalkeeper could've caught it otherwise" is also invalid as that argument literally could apply to every deflected goal.

A goal is an own goal if and only if it would've absolutely zero chance of going in without a defender's/goalkeeper's influence, in other words, if and only if the shot was off-target.