Naismith 'Strike' Credited As Own Goal

[Christiffa25]

Barkleys stood? Even though it was marginally going wide before being deflected to sneak inside the post.

Typical really, the rules of the dubious goals panel don't apply, but then, why should they - referee's are making it up weekly as well.

Strange take on things mate!

Barkley's goal was never in question imo. It's what I'd call taking a nick on its way in not a deflected goal. Hard to say where it was going if it had not taken that nick but I still don't thing wide.

Take goals off people for that and well..... Lampard would only have half of his masside tally.

Mirallas's should of been taken off him. Not sure about naismith.

 

[Kurt.]

I'm deeply offended on his behalf and am considering starting a 'Deeply offended on somebody else's behalf' thread.

 

[cjuk87]

I've written a strongly worded letter to Sir Paul McCartney, hoping he can come and sort this mess out. I'll also be booing Naismith at every future game after it's now been proven he tried to miss on purpose.

Thanks to the trustworthy QPR defence ensuring it went it, the game could've been very different.

 

[The Cowboy]

Strange take on things mate!

Barkley's goal was never in question imo. It's what I'd call taking a nick on its way in not a deflected goal. Hard to say where it was going if it had not taken that nick but I still don't thing wide.

Take goals off people for that and well..... Lampard would only have half of his masside tally.

Mirallas's should of been taken off him. Not sure about naismith.

It is all based on whether the original shot was on target.

Barkley - imo was going wide/onto the post, and was deflected in . Cowboy says OG
Mirallas - original shot appears to be on target. Whether it was going to be saved is irrelevant. Massive deflection is also irrelevant. Cowboy says Mirallas goal
Naismith - original header was on target (I think), but was saved by the keeper. The save effectively ends that goalscoring opportunity and the defender then puts the ball into the net. Cowboy says OG.

 

[Steve Wigan]

It is all based on whether the original shot was on target.

Barkley - imo was going wide/onto the post, and was deflected in . Cowboy says OG
Mirallas - original shot appears to be on target. Whether it was going to be saved is irrelevant. Massive deflection is also irrelevant. Cowboy says Mirallas goal
Naismith - original header was on target (I think), but was saved by the keeper. The save effectively ends that goalscoring opportunity and the defender then puts the ball into the net. Cowboy says OG.

Barkley and Boss Slotters were OGs, Mirallas could have easily been given as an OG, but I see why it wasn't.

 

[Haston]

If they had ruled Barkley's as an OG that would have been extremely harsh

 

[The Cowboy]

Barkley and Boss Slotters were OGs, Mirallas could have easily been given as an OG, but I see why it wasn't.

Why do you believe Mirallas' could be an OG? It's pretty clear that his original shot was heading on target.

 

[Steve Wigan]

Why do you believe Mirallas' could be an OG? It's pretty clear that his original shot was heading on target.

Mainly because I have doubts about the quality of the goals panel...it was such a big deflection that some judges might give it as an OG simply because of that.But youre right, by the letter of the law, it was the one of the three that was not an OG for certain.

 

[The Cowboy]

Mainly because I have doubts about the quality of the goals panel...it was such a big deflection that some judges might give it as an OG simply because of that.But youre right, by the letter of the law, it was the one of the three that was not an OG for certain.

Pretty sure the folks on the panel know what constitutes an OG and what doesn't. They're not going to be swayed by a big deflection.

As mentioned above though, surely there are more important uses of a video panel than deciding whether a goal is an OG or not.

 

[Fuleco]

Needed those points for my fantasy football team who are floundering in the relegation spots.

 

[Jeff Jones]

Why do you believe Mirallas' could be an OG? It's pretty clear that his original shot was heading on target.

I suppose you have to work out whether you think the goalie would've saved it if it hadn't been deflected. I don't remember, but if it
looked easy you'd have to say og. If you think he would've found it hard to stop, it's Kev's.

 

[The Cowboy]

I suppose you have to work out whether you think the goalie would've saved it if it hadn't been deflected. I don't remember, but if it
looked easy you'd have to say og. If you think he would've found it hard to stop, it's Kev's.

No, it is nothing to do with whether the keeper would've saved it, it is just whether the shot was on target.

 

[West]

Ahhh barkleys deflected away from goal slightly not towards it would of being a goal deflection or not imo

 

[The Cowboy]

Ahhh barkleys deflected away from goal slightly not towards it would of being a goal deflection or not imo

Say what? Barkleys shot was deflected away from goal? I'm afraid that's simply not true.

 

[canuckblue]

Ahhh barkleys deflected away from goal slightly not towards it would of being a goal deflection or not imo

It barely deviated from its path, definitely not enough to warrant being an OG. I had to see numerous replays before even detecting the brush against the QPR defender. In my mind, it was heading in all the way.