| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. 16:51 - Oct 29 with 5475 views | Nutkins_Return |
Genuine question. Clearly keeper would have saved it but...it was on target and it was going fast enough to go in. It's essentially deflected in my Mumba.
Normally any shot on target is given if on target regardless of deflection. |  |
| |  |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 16:54 - Oct 29 with 4955 views | J2BLUE |
That wasn't a deflection. It was...er...no idea what he was doing but he played the ball rather than it deflected off him. |  |
| |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 17:08 - Oct 29 with 4884 views | PhilTWTD |
I was wondering the same. I suppose it was just because it was so clearly not going to be a goal until Mumba's intervention. But should still really go down as a Luongo goal. |  | | |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 17:10 - Oct 29 with 4853 views | BloomBlue |
Because it wasn't a deflection it was a shot by Mumba |  | | |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 17:10 - Oct 29 with 4849 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 16:54 - Oct 29 by J2BLUE |
That wasn't a deflection. It was...er...no idea what he was doing but he played the ball rather than it deflected off him. |
It was a great poacher's finish to get in ahead of the keeper. |  |
| |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 17:15 - Oct 29 with 4837 views | Herbivore |
Maybe him actively playing the ball rather than it just hitting him and deflecting in makes a difference. Think Massimo would blush a bit claiming that one. |  |
| |
| Funnier to give it as an OG. (n/t) on 17:16 - Oct 29 with 4812 views | Bloots |
|  |
| "Trite Sixth-Form Politics” - TWTD User (Sept 2025) |
| |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 17:25 - Oct 29 with 4744 views | Perublue |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 17:08 - Oct 29 by PhilTWTD |
I was wondering the same. I suppose it was just because it was so clearly not going to be a goal until Mumba's intervention. But should still really go down as a Luongo goal. |
Is this the kind of thing that would go to the "dubious goals committee" ? if they have such a thing in the EFL. |  |
| |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 17:25 - Oct 29 with 4740 views | Whos_blue |
It was never going in until Mumba's contribution.
For all intents and purposes he pretty much kicked it out of Cooper's hands.
It has to be an own goal.
Funny though! |  |
| Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness. |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 17:33 - Oct 29 with 4692 views | PhilTWTD |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 17:25 - Oct 29 by Perublue |
Is this the kind of thing that would go to the "dubious goals committee" ? if they have such a thing in the EFL. |
They do these days. I assume if Luongo's backheel was on target, he'll get the goal. Having said that, Chaplin's goal at Accrington might well have gone down as Ladapo's so no telling what they might decide. | | | |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 17:43 - Oct 29 with 4605 views | Trequartista |
It wasn't a deflection, it was a clearance. The definition is tricky as there must be some overlap, but i think its used with offsides when a defender plays the ball. |  |
| |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 17:47 - Oct 29 with 4572 views | USA |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 17:33 - Oct 29 by PhilTWTD |
They do these days. I assume if Luongo's backheel was on target, he'll get the goal. Having said that, Chaplin's goal at Accrington might well have gone down as Ladapo's so no telling what they might decide. |
Crazy if that’s given to Luongo. Please let us know on here if you find out if that happens nothing dubious about it. Own goal every time. | |
| |
| Funnier to give it as an OG. (n/t) on 17:55 - Oct 29 with 4538 views | GeoffSentence |
| Funnier to give it as an OG. (n/t) on 17:16 - Oct 29 by Bloots |
|
I can imagine the contentious goals committee thinking along those lines. 'Ha! lets give an OG for the ex-budgie against Ipswich, that'll be a laugh' |  |
| |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 17:58 - Oct 29 with 4504 views | PhilTWTD |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 17:43 - Oct 29 by Trequartista |
It wasn't a deflection, it was a clearance. The definition is tricky as there must be some overlap, but i think its used with offsides when a defender plays the ball. |
Doesn't matter whether it's a deflection or a cleaner touch with an own goal, does it? Usually it's given to the attacking player if it was on target, although possibly not if it wouldn't have had the power to make it over the line. | | | |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 18:14 - Oct 29 with 4425 views | Whos_blue |
Reading the thread I'd started to doubt myself, so just watched it again a couple of times.
There is no way that is going in until Mumba's touch.
Good luck to Mass if he gets it, but OG all day for me. | |
| Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness. |
| |
| Did I read somewhere that.... on 18:19 - Oct 29 with 4379 views | Bloots |
| Funnier to give it as an OG. (n/t) on 17:55 - Oct 29 by GeoffSentence |
I can imagine the contentious goals committee thinking along those lines. 'Ha! lets give an OG for the ex-budgie against Ipswich, that'll be a laugh' |
...Jon Walters was on the committee? (I may have made this up)
If he is, then I expect you are right. | |
| "Trite Sixth-Form Politics” - TWTD User (Sept 2025) |
| |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 21:55 - Oct 29 with 4162 views | Nutkins_Return |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 17:43 - Oct 29 by Trequartista |
It wasn't a deflection, it was a clearance. The definition is tricky as there must be some overlap, but i think its used with offsides when a defender plays the ball. |
But that makes zero difference for a powerful shot it would be given. The criteria is normally if on target and going in then it's awarded to the attacking player. That it was a slow backheeled effort shouldn't really make a difference.
Obviously it would be fortuitous to get a goal like that but you would think the same criteria should apply (unless their is some sub criteria where it can have some subjectivity).
OG classification should be avoided as much as possible in my opinion. Nobody wants an own goal. | |
| |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 06:35 - Oct 30 with 3871 views | ITFC_Forever |
I asked this on Saturday, but I suspect as it was a deliberate attempt to play the ball by Mumba, rather than an accidental deflection, it’s enough to be classed as an own goal. |  |
| |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 07:31 - Oct 30 with 3765 views | Herbivore |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 21:55 - Oct 29 by Nutkins_Return |
But that makes zero difference for a powerful shot it would be given. The criteria is normally if on target and going in then it's awarded to the attacking player. That it was a slow backheeled effort shouldn't really make a difference.
Obviously it would be fortuitous to get a goal like that but you would think the same criteria should apply (unless their is some sub criteria where it can have some subjectivity).
OG classification should be avoided as much as possible in my opinion. Nobody wants an own goal. |
I'm not sure you could even call it a shot from Luongo though, more just trying to keep the ball alive in the area. Sometimes it's good to just go with common sense (rare on football I know) and for me the common sense view is it's an own goal because there's zero chance it goes in without Mumba playing the ball and steering it past his keeper. | |
| |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 12:26 - Oct 30 with 3463 views | tractorboy1978 |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 21:55 - Oct 29 by Nutkins_Return |
But that makes zero difference for a powerful shot it would be given. The criteria is normally if on target and going in then it's awarded to the attacking player. That it was a slow backheeled effort shouldn't really make a difference.
Obviously it would be fortuitous to get a goal like that but you would think the same criteria should apply (unless their is some sub criteria where it can have some subjectivity).
OG classification should be avoided as much as possible in my opinion. Nobody wants an own goal. |
Hopefully everyone at the club is happy for Mumba to have it! I certainly am. | | | |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 12:36 - Oct 30 with 3404 views | TractorCam |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 17:10 - Oct 29 by BloomBlue |
Because it wasn't a deflection it was a shot by Mumba |
Indeed, it's only the attackers goal if it's a deflection with the initial shot still on target. Mumba basically prodded the ball out of the keepers hands. [Post edited 30 Oct 2023 12:36]
|  |
| |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 12:40 - Oct 30 with 3370 views | _clive_baker_ |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 07:31 - Oct 30 by Herbivore |
I'm not sure you could even call it a shot from Luongo though, more just trying to keep the ball alive in the area. Sometimes it's good to just go with common sense (rare on football I know) and for me the common sense view is it's an own goal because there's zero chance it goes in without Mumba playing the ball and steering it past his keeper. |
This. There's no point having a panel if it's entirely formulaic as to whether something is an OG or not. Common sense says that one simply has to be defined as an own goal, it's not going in without Mumba sticking it past Cooper.
Not that it really matters. |  | | |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 14:03 - Oct 30 with 3204 views | Radlett_blue |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 17:33 - Oct 29 by PhilTWTD |
They do these days. I assume if Luongo's backheel was on target, he'll get the goal. Having said that, Chaplin's goal at Accrington might well have gone down as Ladapo's so no telling what they might decide. |
I am still in dispute over a goal scored in a college 2nd XI game in 1976. After a corner, our midfield player creamed a half volley from the edge of the area. If flicked the top of my head on the way into the net. No one considered it my goal, but I continue to claim it! |  |
| |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 18:40 - Oct 30 with 3042 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 14:03 - Oct 30 by Radlett_blue |
I am still in dispute over a goal scored in a college 2nd XI game in 1976. After a corner, our midfield player creamed a half volley from the edge of the area. If flicked the top of my head on the way into the net. No one considered it my goal, but I continue to claim it! |
You couldn't even write "it flicked the top of my head" without casting doubt yourself. You know he deserved the goal and so did everyone else. | |
| |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 18:48 - Oct 30 with 3019 views | PhilTWTD |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 14:03 - Oct 30 by Radlett_blue |
I am still in dispute over a goal scored in a college 2nd XI game in 1976. After a corner, our midfield player creamed a half volley from the edge of the area. If flicked the top of my head on the way into the net. No one considered it my goal, but I continue to claim it! |
Definitely your goal. Any proper striker would claim it! | | | |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 21:10 - Oct 30 with 2911 views | Nutkins_Return |
| Why was our first goal not given to Luongo. on 12:40 - Oct 30 by _clive_baker_ |
This. There's no point having a panel if it's entirely formulaic as to whether something is an OG or not. Common sense says that one simply has to be defined as an own goal, it's not going in without Mumba sticking it past Cooper.
Not that it really matters. |
It doesn't really matter but entirely formulaic actually does make sense when you consider the betting markets. You need to have a completely consistent approach to stuff where people stand to win or lose a lot of money (as depressing and wrong as that is) | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
