Aguero's penalty

[munster]

Re: Agueros penalty

It's because the ball was saved onto the post, then came back out and hit Howard. Unfortunayely has to go down as an own goal, because it wouldn't have gone in if it hadnt hit Howard again.

But of course by the strict rules of causality, if Aguero had not hit it, it wouldn't have been able to come off the post and hit Howard to go in.....

 

[Matty]

Re: Agueros penalty

It's because the ball was saved onto the post, then came back out and hit Howard. Unfortunayely has to go down as an own goal, because it wouldn't have gone in if it hadnt hit Howard again.

But of course by the strict rules of causality, if Aguero had not hit it, it wouldn't have been able to come off the post and hit Howard to go in.....

By that argument, if the kick off hadn't been taken to start the second half the penalty would never have been won.........

 

[Blue Theatre]

Re: Agueros penalty

I appreciate the strictly logical argument for classing it as an OG, but I think Aguero will be unlucky if they take the goal off him ... because down the years I can think of many many occasions in football games where a ball has struck the back of a goalkeeper, his foot, his hand, squeezed in at the near post where arguably the ball came off the post for a split-second and then off the keeper into the goal ... and 99% of them were given to the striker anyway.

You also see several goals a season where a keeper goes down to smother a shot and ends up pushing the ball against his own thigh or foot and from there it rolls back across the line. Shots sometimes bounce off his elbow as he dives but then spin back, etc etc. But they are always given to the striker, because after all the goalie was doing his best, if he hadn't thrown himself at the ball it would have gone in anyway ... so it would seem very harsh to put his name up in lights with a big "O.G." after it.
Also, of course, the striker wants the goal and the goalie does not want the OG. IMO, "OG"s should really be saved for proper cock-ups, not unavoidable deflections whilst making a genuine attempt to save the shot.

Most goalies go their whole careers without a single "OG" and if you applied the rule as strictly as some people on here would like to, I don't think that would happen ... I think every goalie would have half a dozen career own-goals if you counted any time the ball was not strictly heading into the goal when it last touched any part of his body.

So I think Aguero should be given the goal.

 

[daxman]

Re: Agueros penalty

It's because the ball was saved onto the post, then came back out and hit Howard. Unfortunayely has to go down as an own goal, because it wouldn't have gone in if it hadnt hit Howard again.

Yes it would kun would have followed it up and smashed it in lol !!

Or perhaps SIlva, or Milner, or gotten cleared by a defender. But that is exactly the point. It was not going in on its own force without a re direction. And that redirection was by the opposition. Thus it should be an own goal.

 

[daxman]

Re: Agueros penalty

I appreciate the strictly logical argument for classing it as an OG, but I think Aguero will be unlucky if they take the goal off him ... because down the years I can think of many many occasions in football games where a ball has struck the back of a goalkeeper, his foot, his hand, squeezed in at the near post where arguably the ball came off the post for a split-second and then off the keeper into the goal ... and 99% of them were given to the striker anyway.

You also see several goals a season where a keeper goes down to smother a shot and ends up pushing the ball against his own thigh or foot and from there it rolls back across the line. Shots sometimes bounce off his elbow as he dives but then spin back, etc etc. But they are always given to the striker, because after all the goalie was doing his best, if he hadn't thrown himself at the ball it would have gone in anyway ... so it would seem very harsh to put his name up in lights with a big "O.G." after it.
Also, of course, the striker wants the goal and the goalie does not want the OG. IMO, "OG"s should really be saved for proper cock-ups, not unavoidable deflections whilst making a genuine attempt to save the shot.

Most goalies go their whole careers without a single "OG" and if you applied the rule as strictly as some people on here would like to, I don't think that would happen ... I think every goalie would have half a dozen career own-goals if you counted any time the ball was not strictly heading into the goal when it last touched any part of his body.

So I think Aguero should be given the goal.

This does not apply. A goalie trying to stop a shot that then deflects off him and goes into the goal, is not and own goal. On the other hand, If a looping chipped shot careens off the crossbar and hits the goalie on the back of his elbow, that will be an own goal. The simple idea is tha a ball that has hit the bar and then changes course back into the field of play and away from goal, is no longer goal bound. Thus when such a rebound is deflected back in by a defender it is an own goal.

Sure there blurry circumstances for example when the goalie tries to muffle a shot that hit the bar and somehow squibbles in. While it is true that it is likely the ball might have not gone in, if the goalie simply just stopped fussing in the milisecond. Such goals are given to the shooter because it is unclear whether the ball would have gone in or not. But when is clear the ball wasn't going in, then it is an own goal.

In This case, Howard pushed the ball onto the post, the ball hit the post came back out, hit his head, then went in. It is clear in this case that it was not going in but for Howard's shiny dome. :)

 

[Barcon]

Re: Agueros penalty

The second it hits the post it's back in play and in your words, another phase of play.

Obviously the panel are now inclined to credit the striker and not blemish a keeper for something he had no control over but those saying it's not an O.G or that they see no reason for it to be are wearing blue tinted specs.

Even with my blue tinted glasses on I actually don't care whether this gets awarded to Aguero or not. However, if the shot is on target and ends up in the back of the net without another player touching it apart from the keeper it shouldn't be an own goal imo. Obviously, if the keeper saves it and has the ball under control, then throws it into his own net, then this is a different kettle of fish and should be an own goal. As I said earlier, lets just see who gets credited with this goal as we aren't going to agree.

Then why reply to my post...

I've said I think Aguero will get the credit for the goal based on a set precedent but I don't agree with those saying it's blatantly not an O.G. because if it doesn't hit Howard it doesn't go in, simple as that really. Lets just wait as you say.

What do you base this on? Without knowing the trajectory of the ball, who's to say it wouldn't have gone in? either due to the spin of the ball or possibly off the other post first?

 

[pudge]

Re: Agueros penalty

Even with my blue tinted glasses on I actually don't care whether this gets awarded to Aguero or not. However, if the shot is on target and ends up in the back of the net without another player touching it apart from the keeper it shouldn't be an own goal imo. Obviously, if the keeper saves it and has the ball under control, then throws it into his own net, then this is a different kettle of fish and should be an own goal. As I said earlier, lets just see who gets credited with this goal as we aren't going to agree.

Then why reply to my post...

I've said I think Aguero will get the credit for the goal based on a set precedent but I don't agree with those saying it's blatantly not an O.G. because if it doesn't hit Howard it doesn't go in, simple as that really. Lets just wait as you say.

What do you base this on? Without knowing the trajectory of the ball, who's to say it wouldn't have gone in? either due to the spin of the ball or possibly off the other post first?

It doesn't bounce back in the direction of Howard's head if it was going to go in off the other post. And the speed of the ball in the opposite direction of the goal negates any idea of spin, at least any amount sufficient to make it stop, and go the other way.

Regardless, I think and hope you're not being serious.

 

[daxman]

Re: Agueros penalty

Then why reply to my post...

I've said I think Aguero will get the credit for the goal based on a set precedent but I don't agree with those saying it's blatantly not an O.G. because if it doesn't hit Howard it doesn't go in, simple as that really. Lets just wait as you say.

What do you base this on? Without knowing the trajectory of the ball, who's to say it wouldn't have gone in? either due to the spin of the ball or possibly off the other post first?

It doesn't bounce back in the direction of Howard's head if it was going to go in off the other post. And the speed of the ball in the opposite direction of the goal negates any idea of spin, at least any amount sufficient to make it stop, and go the other way.

Regardless, I think and hope you're not being serious.

Well, this is shocking. I am on the same side of an argument with Pudge. Surely one of us must be on the bottle right now. Since I live in the States and it is just 9am, my guess is Pudge has the bottle :p

 

[Barcon]

Re: Agueros penalty

Then why reply to my post...

I've said I think Aguero will get the credit for the goal based on a set precedent but I don't agree with those saying it's blatantly not an O.G. because if it doesn't hit Howard it doesn't go in, simple as that really. Lets just wait as you say.

What do you base this on? Without knowing the trajectory of the ball, who's to say it wouldn't have gone in? either due to the spin of the ball or possibly off the other post first?

It doesn't bounce back in the direction of Howard's head if it was going to go in off the other post. And the speed of the ball in the opposite direction of the goal negates any idea of spin, at least any amount sufficient to make it stop, and go the other way.

Regardless, I think and hope you're not being serious.

I guess I'll have to try and watch it again then because it looked like howards head was about 6" away from the ball when it hit him. Without his big head head in the way I couldn't tell which way the ball was heading, or at what speed it was travelling.

Just watched it, your right it was heading back out. That's what I get for watching on a dodgy stream. I do think the rules need to be looked at for this though. When the ball left Sergios foot it was heading in the direction of the goal.

 

[pudge]

Re: Agueros penalty

What do you base this on? Without knowing the trajectory of the ball, who's to say it wouldn't have gone in? either due to the spin of the ball or possibly off the other post first?

It doesn't bounce back in the direction of Howard's head if it was going to go in off the other post. And the speed of the ball in the opposite direction of the goal negates any idea of spin, at least any amount sufficient to make it stop, and go the other way.

Regardless, I think and hope you're not being serious.

I guess I'll have to try and watch it again then because it looked like howards head was about 6" away from the ball when it hit him. Without his big head head in the way I couldn't tell which way the ball was heading, or at what speed it was travelling.

Just watched it, your right it was heading back out. That's what I get for watching on a dodgy stream. I do think the rules need to be looked at for this though. When the ball left Sergios foot it was heading in the direction of the goal.

I think Sergio will eventually get credit for the goal but more out of decency than the rules.

With something as "bang bang" as a penalty, the keeper shouldn't be blemished with an own goal for something completely out of his control, especially as he made the save in the first place. If it bounced off the post and say hit an onrushing Everton defender there would be no debating you would get credit, it would simply be an own goal, but I think the panel will and have been more lenient to keepers in that situation.