Championship top scorers

[Ramsey is god]

Ive watched it so many times on the highlights and to me it was going in the corner no matter what. So harsh that decision imho.

Is some spotty tw@t looking at slo mo replays to determine if it was going to go in? just give the goal to Austin, hes happy and the defender doesnt want an OG next to his name. Doing it this way manages to pi$$ everyone off.

[bhujio]

It should go to the last attacking player to get the touch or the last defender (OG) regardless of it being on target or not.
It would be fair to give it to the attacking player as he took the chance in hope.
Sack the dubious panel altogether.

[Shepherds Mush]

But we'll recoup massively by winning promotion to the prem, if his goals are enough to fire us back Jim.

[Hove Ranger]

Now, if there is any rhyme or reason to who gets credit for a goal, could somebody please explain to me why Beckham did not get credit for the 2006 World Cup goal I posted about earlier in this thread, with a clip. Beckham's shot was clearly ON target when it was deflected and he did NOT get credit; Charlies shot was clearly OFF target (IMHO, but even if you think it was ON target, it was then exactly the same situation as Beckham's) and deflected and he DID get credit!

Question for the day: Why do they call it the "dubious goals" panel? There was nothing dubious about the goal, there is no doubt it went in!

I think because Beckham's "goal" was a cross that was headed in by the defender rather than a shot that deflected in. You can tell by the trajectory and the pace on the ball that it is a cross. If the cross ended up going in without being touched then Beckham would have been credited with the goal.

Also think it's called "dubious goals" panel because it has more of a ring to it than "dubious goalscorers" panel and football fans understand what it is alluding to. But yes it is somewhat incorrect

[Stanley]

Oh ye of little faith

[Kevin Mcleod]

Im pretty certain every single club in the top ten thinks they have got a massive chance of promotion.

[dsqpr]

I think because Beckham's "goal" was a cross that was headed in by the defender rather than a shot that deflected in. You can tell by the trajectory and the pace on the ball that it is a cross. If the cross ended up going in without being touched then Beckham would have been credited with the goal.

Also think it's called "dubious goals" panel because it has more of a ring to it than "dubious goalscorers" panel and football fans understand what it is alluding to. But yes it is somewhat incorrect

I think you've made my point very nicely about there being no rules about who gets the goal Hove! Whether it was a cross or a shot is VERY subjective! It was certainly a shooting position more than a crossing one, although very far out, and a "cross" would probably have been curled the other way (just playing devil's advocate). Also, if a corner (clearly a cross) goes in off the head of a defender on the line, that would be an OG according to your rule - but in reality I'm sure it would be credited to the corner taker.

Yes, I was not serious about the name, just pointing out a discrepancy that amuses me.

[Hove Ranger]

I think you've made my point very nicely about there being no rules about who gets the goal Hove! Whether it was a cross or a shot is VERY subjective! It was certainly a shooting position more than a crossing one, although very far out, and a "cross" would probably have been curled the other way (just playing devil's advocate). Also, if a corner (clearly a cross) goes in off the head of a defender on the line, that would be an OG according to your rule - but in reality I'm sure it would be credited to the corner taker.

Yes, I was not serious about the name, just pointing out a discrepancy that amuses me.

The whole process is subjective hence the fact there is a committee to decide. I would disagree that the Beckham goal was a shot or even in shooting position. Most free kicks from the left wing are taken by right footers and vise versa, to allow the taker to curl in towards the far post, creating more confusion in the box. I also feel that if a corner hit a defenders head on the line it would be given as an OG yes because the intention was to cross initially. Similarly if the keeper tries to catch it or flaps at it on the line and it goes in, I see them giving it as an OG.

[dsqpr]

The whole process is subjective hence the fact there is a committee to decide. I would disagree that the Beckham goal was a shot or even in shooting position. Most free kicks from the left wing are taken by right footers and vise versa, to allow the taker to curl in towards the far post, creating more confusion in the box. I also feel that if a corner hit a defenders head on the line it would be given as an OG yes because the intention was to cross initially.

Yes, but there should be some guiding principles. I don't think there are any as I've seen similar situations given one way sometimes and the other way other times. That's really all I'm saying.

In terms of what those principles should be, I would certainly say that a corner that goes directly in, brushing the head of a defender on the way, should certainly be credited to the attacker! But that is probably a different discussion.

[Hove Ranger]

Yes, but there should be some guiding principles. I don't think there are any as I've seen similar situations given one way sometimes and the other way other times. That's really all I'm saying.

In terms of what those principles should be, I would certainly say that a corner that goes directly in, brushing the head of a defender on the way, should certainly be credited to the attacker! But that is probably a different discussion.

I'm not aware of the exact ruling personally but there will be some sort of rules/principles. In regards to the corner situation, I see it being given as an OG. Not sure whether I agree with that or not but as you say that is for a different discussion

[dsqpr]

I'm not aware of the exact ruling personally but there will be some sort of rules/principles. In regards to the corner situation, I see it being given as an OG. Not sure whether I agree with that or not but as you say that is for a different discussion

What are they?!

And if you don't know, why are they secret?! There is no reason not to publish them, if they exist.

[qpr4life]

Blackburn goal was an OG mate

He's been awarded it now.

[ConorM1882]

Think Chris Wood could've been a good signing for us!