Page 1 of 1

O/T - One for the "Dubious Goals Committee"....

PostPosted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:19 pm
by John L

Re: O/T - One for the "Dubious Goals Committee"....

PostPosted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:00 pm
by Morecambe Player
Over here, the "Dubious Goals Committee" only decide on whether a player should have a goal chalked off in favour of it being an own goal. For example, if a player takes a shot which is obviously going well wide, and it's deflected in, it will be given as an own goal. If it's goalbound, then that's a little tricker.

However, if the goal is to be disputed between players of the same team, then it's up to the club to decide who the goal is awarded to. So if Craig Stanley shoots from outside the area, and Phil Jevons sticks a foot out and deflects it in, with the faintest of touches, then it's up to MFC to decide who the goal should be given to.

Re: O/T - One for the "Dubious Goals Committee"....

PostPosted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:27 pm
by mrg1309
Morecambe Player wrote:Over here, the "Dubious Goals Committee" only decide on whether a player should have a goal chalked off in favour of it being an own goal ... it's up to MFC to decide who the goal should be given to.


Not according to this...

Stanley credited with Lincoln goal
Posted on: Mon 19 Apr 2010
THE FA has given the disputed Morecambe goal at Lincoln recently to Craig Stanley.

The midfielder's strike in the 3-1 win at Sincil Bank was also claimed by top scorer Phil Jevons and in such circumstances the footage has to be shown to the FA's Dubious Goals Committee who have the final say.

In the end the authorities' final conclusion was that the goal should be credited to Stanley.


http://www.morecambefc.com/page/NewsDetail/0,,10866~2029628,00.html

Re: O/T - One for the "Dubious Goals Committee"....

PostPosted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:55 pm
by Morecambe Player
mrg1309 wrote:
Morecambe Player wrote:Over here, the "Dubious Goals Committee" only decide on whether a player should have a goal chalked off in favour of it being an own goal ... it's up to MFC to decide who the goal should be given to.


Not according to this...

Stanley credited with Lincoln goal
Posted on: Mon 19 Apr 2010
THE FA has given the disputed Morecambe goal at Lincoln recently to Craig Stanley.

The midfielder's strike in the 3-1 win at Sincil Bank was also claimed by top scorer Phil Jevons and in such circumstances the footage has to be shown to the FA's Dubious Goals Committee who have the final say.

In the end the authorities' final conclusion was that the goal should be credited to Stanley.


http://www.morecambefc.com/page/NewsDetail/0,,10866~2029628,00.html


My information came from here: Which shows it's probably different in the Premier League...

http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Team-news/20 ... s-the-goal

The arguments are over! Carlos Tevez has been credited officially by the club with the second goal in the 5-1 victory over Birmingham on Sunday.

Nedum Onuoha thought he had put the Blues 2-0 ahead at the City of Manchester Stadium with his powerful diving header just three minutes after Tevez grabbed the lead from the spot.

But goal-hungry team-mate Carlos claimed that one as well after poking a toe at the ball on its way past goalkeeper Maik Taylor, given a torrid afternoon as Joe Hart's deputy.

Now the club, asked to rule on the official scorer because the Premier League only steps into debates about possible own goals, has awarded the goal to the Argentina striker.

It takes Tevez to 22 goals in the Premier League - and at the heart of the hunt for the coveted Golden Boot - and 28 goals in all, his biggest-ever haul in a single campaign.

Onuoha later capped a man-of-the-match performance by slicing through Birmingham's frazzled defence to score the goal of the game and put City 4-1 ahead after 76 minutes.

Nedum said: "Carlos told me at half-time that it was his, and I just shru
gged and said 'fine' - you don't want to argue with him, he’s passionate about scoring goals."

Re: O/T - One for the "Dubious Goals Committee"....

PostPosted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 2:13 pm
by mrg1309
Interesting that its different, personally I would have thought it would be the other way round if anything.