[Albion] Who should be "credited" with our goal against Burnley?

[AZ Gull]

Exactly. It’s definitely Berge’s goal.

He kicked the ball at the goal. The keeper got a feather, but failed to stop it. Those are the FACTS.

Take a similar scenario, but in this one Berge kicks it much harder, towards the corner of the goal. Muric at full stretch gets a toe to it but can’t keep it out. In that scenario nobody would be suggesting it was the keeper’s OG - and yet the situations are effectively the very same.

The only differences are subjective opinions of merit / blame - and that not how statistics work.

Indeed. I will be recording it as a Berge own goal, even if no other website in the world is.

 

[jcdenton08]

Keeper never got anywhere near a touch on that one tho

*EDIT* And here it is - with the added brucie bonus of The Hawk's glorious diving header

One of the few times there was audible laughter (including from yours truly) when conceding a goal. It was magnificent. Similar laughter after Phil Stant scored his incredible “diving header” for us from 6 inches off the ground

 

[Mancgull]

No honorable mention for Pedro for merely approaching Berge?

And for Lallana for closing down the keeper.

 

[Bozza]

It’s the ‘keepers goal in my mind.

If it’s the other way around, say Gross has a shot which was going in anyway, but took a slight glance off a team mate, it would be the team mates goal. In fact I think Dunk has a goal like this this season? Recall a shot into a crowded box which glanced him.

This convinced me that giving it to the 'keeper is the right thing to do, as it's the most similar scenario I can think of.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Exactly. It’s definitely Berge’s goal.

He kicked the ball at the goal. The keeper got a feather, but failed to stop it. Those are the FACTS.

Take a similar scenario, but in this one Berge kicks it much harder, towards the corner of the goal. Muric at full stretch gets a toe to it but can’t keep it out. In that scenario nobody would be suggesting it was the keeper’s OG - and yet the situations are effectively the very same.

The only differences are subjective opinions of merit / blame - and that not how statistics work.

I can't help but think that given the goal has been awarded to Muric, it turns out that's exactly how this particular statistic works.

More seriously, if they'd scored the same goal at the "correct" end, wouldn't it have been awarded to Muric?

 

[AZ Gull]

It’s the ‘keepers goal in my mind.

If it’s the other way around, say Gross has a shot which was going in anyway, but took a slight glance off a team mate, it would be the team mates goal. In fact I think Dunk has a goal like this this season? Recall a shot into a crowded box which glanced him.

This convinced me that giving it to the 'keeper is the right thing to do, as it's the most similar scenario I can think of.

@Herr Tubthumper - I assume you are talking about Albion's 1st goal against Liverpool in the FA Cup last season? (From around 5m 48s on the video):-



Unfortunately that ISN'T a comparable example because Lamptey's shot was bending away from goal, and Dunk's touch ABSOLUTELY diverted it into the net - hence, Dunk's goal.

I can't actually think of another example where an attacker's shot (that was on target) took a slight deflection off a teammate and then went into the net, but I would argue that would still be credited to the striker of the original shot (or header).

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

@Herr Tubthumper - I assume you are talking about Albion's 1st goal against Liverpool in the FA Cup last season? (From around 5m 48s on the video):-



Unfortunately that ISN'T a comparable example because Lamptey's shot was bending away from goal, and Dunk's touch ABSOLUTELY diverted it into the net - hence, Dunk's goal.

I can't actually think of another example where an attacker's shot (that was on target) took a slight deflection off a teammate and then went into the net, but I would argue that would still be credited to the striker of the original shot (or header).

Fair enough regarding my specific example. But I still think the principle still holds…. there has been plenty of cases where a shot it going in but a team mate has nicked the goal by getting the last touch.

 

[AZ Gull]

Fair enough regarding my specific example. But I still think the principle still holds…. there has been plenty of cases where a shot it going in but a team mate has nicked the goal by getting the last touch.

Can you specify any? Then we can check who was awarded the goal.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Can you specify any? Then we can check who was awarded the goal.

There was a famous/infamous Harry Kane goal against Stoke a few years ago.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

There was a famous/infamous Harry Kane goal against Stoke a few years ago.

That's the one I was thinking of to. The goal was originally credited to Christian Eriksen direct from a free kick, but Kane claimed it saying it had brushed off his shoulder on the way in. The dubious goals panel looked at it and awarded it to Kane. Kane's touch was a lot less obvious than the Burnley keeper on Saturday too.

Video of the Kane goal.


Report confirming the award of the goal to Kane

Premier League dubious goals panel make final decision on Kane/Eriksen goal

Spurs' second goal was originally given to Eriksen but Kane insisted that the ball clipped his shoulder on the way in

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

That's the one I was thinking of to. The goal was originally credited to Christian Eriksen direct from a free kick, but Kane claimed it saying it had brushed off his shoulder on the way in. The dubious goals panel looked at it and awarded it to Kane. Kane's touch was a lot less obvious than the Burnley keeper on Saturday too.

Video of the Kane goal.


Report confirming the award of the goal to Kane

Premier League dubious goals panel make final decision on Kane/Eriksen goal

Spurs' second goal was originally given to Eriksen but Kane insisted that the ball clipped his shoulder on the way in

www.mirror.co.uk

Delightful use of the phrase "less obvious" there.

That was what I had in mind as well (before I realised I'd skimmed over a number of people making the same point).