Talk:Own goal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Badly worded
"An own goal cannot be scored directly from a throw-in or a free kick (a corner kick will be awarded to the attacking team if so should happen), and under certain other circumstances."
This needs to be reworded. The rule is - if an attacker takes a free kick, or a throw in, and (for some bizarre, completely unlikely reason) kicks or throws it into his own net, then it's not an own goal, but a corner is given to the other team.
The way it reads now, you might think that if an attacker takes a free kick, and a defender knocks it into his own net, it's not an own goal - when of course it is - obvious example David Beckham/Carlos Gamarra. You can argue the toss about whether Beckham or Gamarra gets the "credit", but it certainly didn't result in a corner for Paraguay.
I know it says "directly", so the example doesn't really apply, but the sentence as reads now just seems a bit strange to me. Some explanation is required, but I'd rather someone who has a copy of the rule book did it :) Camillus (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recentism?
John Arne Riise scored an own goal on the 22nd April 2008 in the Champions League Semi Final, 1st Leg. This was scored in the 95th minute, and gave Chelsea a precious away goal and 1-1 draw against Liverpool at Anfield. Chelsea later went on to win the home leg 3-2, and progress through to the Champions League final.
I dont feel this is a particularly notable goal compared to most on the list and is probably being added because it is recent rather than having any real importance. --neonwhite user page talk 02:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree - if not for this own goal, Liverpool would have reached the Champions League final - assuming a 3-2 victory for Chelsea in the second leg, Liverpool would have gone through on the away goals rule. Rather significant, I'd say, and the fact that it was scored so deep into injury time also makes it an especially cruel blow for Liverpool. Camillus 10:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- But it's only one semi-final that will likely be forgotten in time, whereas if you look at each of the other entries they all have some kind of significance/controversy beyond affecting the outcome of the game. Such as multiple own goals, Andrés Escobar's murder, goals that decided competitions. If this was the final and the champions were decided by the goal i think it would be a different case but i don't see how this is not just a regular own goal among hundreds scored worldwide each year. At best i think it's borderline significant. I'd like a few more opinions on this. Maybe a rfc? --neonwhite user page talk 12:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Missing the point somewhat - if they hadn't scored the own-goal, they'd be in the final of arguably the most prestigious tournament in club football. I'd says its much more significant than that of Nicola Caricola, Jonathan Woodgate, Djimi Traoré, Keith Gillespie, two own goals in a Scottish First Division match, or the one by Yuri Kovtun. Camillus 12:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- You know what, it doesn't really matter - the six I mentioned had no significance beyond the result whatsoever, whereas Chelsea and not Liverpool are in the Champions League final, and Liverpool are at least 3 million pounds poorer [1], because of Riise's og, 4mins 3 seconds "into" 4 minutes overtime, descibed by the Times as "one of the greatest own goals of all time". "did not cause any controversy"? - I see black, you see white. Oh well. Next case. Camillus 21:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I will explain the significance. Woodgate - one his debut and gets send off too. Nicola Caricola for the so called Curse of Caricola, fans blamed to goal for the teams poor run. Djimi Traoré because of the unusual way the goal was scored. Keith Gillespie because of the fight and discipline afterwards. I grant that Hamiltons goals may be dodgy. Yuri Kovtun - iceland beating russia is a significant without an own goal, because it was an own goal makes it notable.
- The problem with the list as i see it is that it is unsourced. It should be based on coverage and as you suggest so i propose changing the criteria to include only goals that have had significant relaible coverage. I think this will bring it more in line with WP:V policy. Obviously this would require going through all the entries. What do you think? --neonwhite user page talk 01:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Sources
Done some work on the sources, still needs more doing, this article has some more that can be added [2] also the list needs ordering possibly into chrono. order? --neonwhite user page talk 15:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

