Let’s say that Abbott, from the Ypsilianti team, is in Duluth’s half of the field and sends the ball towards the back of the net. Costello, from the Duluth team, tries to kick it away and gets a foot on it, but it goes into the goal anyway. Assume that Abbott would have scored either way – does it still go down as an Own Goal on Costello/Duluth?
It shouldn’t be. I find it analogous to a goalie getting his hands on a ball that was being kicked in but it went in anyway; like it got deflected into the goal off his hands. That wouldn’t be an “own goal”, just a failed save.
But apparently the rules aren’t clear and sometimes a ball deflecting off a defender into the goal is an “own goal”, sometimes it isn’t. It’s completely up to the referee’s personal judgement on a case-by-case basis.
Here’s a controversial incident, where a ball bounced off a post, hit a defender’s back, then bounced into the goal and was called an own goal.
I think reading that article gives a pretty good idea of how subjective this issue is.
Note that I’m going from a FIFA perspective. Other organizations have different rules I’m sure.
ETA: Oh, and quoting from the article, World Cup rules are more specific:
Own goals are rare in FIFA World Cup finals and they are often surrounded by confusion about whether the attacker should be awarded the goal or not. To help resolve these kinds of issues, FIFA published guidelines in 1997 classifying an own goal as when a player plays the ball directly into his own net or when he redirects an opponent’s shot, cross, or pass into his own goal. Shots that are on target (i.e. goal-bound) and touch a defender or rebound from the goal frame and bounce off a defender or goalkeeper are not considered own goals.
So if your example happened in the World Cup it would not be an own goal. It could be in other FIFA matches though, depending on what the referee’s opinion was.
Own goals are purely a record keeping artifact and not an official part of the laws of the game, so it’s really up to any particular record keeping body to define an own goal as they see fit. The general guidelines, though, tend to be:
- ball was going into the goal, defender touches it, ball goes in - no own goal, because the ball was going in anyway and it’s just a failed block
- ball was not going into the goal, defender touches it, ball goes in - own goal since the ball only went in because of the defender’s interference
But then there are edge cases like the Tim Howard goal discussed above where people of all stripes argue about the degree to which defender intent should be taken into account. Did the defender intend to touch/play the ball? Should the defender be “punished” with an own goal just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and the ball bounces off of them? What if the shot was going in, then one defender blocks it wide, then another defender gets in the way of that block and it bounces off of them into the goal? Is that an own goal on the last defender or a great shot into a congested defense by the attacker? Those cases aren’t so clear-cut and opinions and definitions vary.
And the gamblers have to agree on whose decision rules. Thats where these decisions get really heated.
I would hope that the bookie and the punter would have come to an agreement about this before the money changed hands.
BTW, I know that the UK’s gambling laws are a bit … freewheeling, in comparison to most places in the U.S. But can/do bookies operate openly? In the States that sort of thing is quite illegal, and with the prevalence of legal sportsbooks (apps, brick & mortar casinos, etc.) bookies aren’t really a necessity (for gamblers who want to put action on sports), but I suppose they still exist and are quite busy in some places.
I was thinking about the organized, legal betting markets. I don’t gamble, so I have never read the detailed terms and conditions, but I assume they must cover these. Though back in the day, when there was no legal online sports betting in the US (almost twenty years ago) I used to look at the odds on an Australian site called Centrebet. And their terms and conditions seemed to amount to, “we decide if you have won or lost”.
So if you have bet on Griezmann to score and he shoots at goal, the ball is blocked by the keeper into another defender and into the net, either there is an official scorer that decides or the betting platform does.
I do remember a case where Pakistan forfeited a cricket match, or were deemed to have forfeited, a cricket match. Then two years later the governing body reversed the decision to a no-result. And a year after that reversed again. The betting shops all paid out as if Pakistan had lost, and that apparently was final.
I guess the same issue arises if there are disqualifications for doping. If the swimmer who finished first is disqualified for doping the next day, are the bets reversed?
Former professional soccer referee here (at levels where the referees and possibly the coaches are the only ones getting paid to be there). One thing we learned in training is that it’s not the referee’s decision to determine who played the ball into the goal, whether attacker or defender, unless it’s a question of whether it’s a goal or not. For instance, if a player taking a goal kick plays the ball directly into the goal they are defending, it does not score for the opposing team and would not be an own goal. Don’t ask me why, them’s just the laws.
It’s not just their on goal. If somehow they managed to kick it into the opposing goal untouched, it’s also not a goal. (In the former case a corner kick to the opposing team is awarded. In the latter case it’s a goal kick from that side.)
In practice, a goal kick is just an indirect kick. (Unlike corner kicks which are direct kicks.) It must be touched by someone else after the kick for scoring to be possible.
I’ll just note in hockey there isn’t such a thing as an “own goal” and instead the last attacker to touch it gets credit, even if he last touched it many seconds before the puck went into the net. Some goalies have gotten credit for goals in this way even tho they never shot it on goal themselves (some however have scored directly).
True dat. You cannot legally score from an action that puts the ball back into play after it has been out of play. Throw it directly in from a throw-in? Goal kick (or corner, if you throw it into the goal you’re defending).
You cannot legally score from an action that puts the ball back into play after it has been out of play.
I’m not understanding. Here’s video of several scores from corner kicks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiyeWSSCqP4
Ah, I misspoke. Of course it’s legal to score directly on a corner kick. Maybe it’s a good thing that I hung up my whistle years ago!
I’m not really familiar with soccer rules regarding that but, in ice hockey, the goal is awarded to the last player on the opposing team to touch the puck. The goal is unassisted, meaning no assists are given, and the puck is recorded as a shot on goal for that player.
I figured this had been covered, but I don’t see it upthread. If it was, my apologies.
In England, the official determination of who is credited for a goal when their is some doubt is made by the delightfully-named “Dubious Goals Committee”:
Their criteria is:
I can tell you why but I suspect you already know. A goal kick is an indirect kick so the first touch on the ball can not result in a goal. This, if the defender were to kick the ball directly into his own goal on a goal kick, it’s not a goal. Can anyone guess how that game would be restarted? (Should be pretty obvious).
Well, yes you can. On a direct free kick. But you probably meant “out of play” to mean “out of bounds” but anytime the game is stopped (like after a foul is called), the ball is out of play.
Also, on a corner kick the ball may be directly kicked in the opponent’s goal for a goal (but not into your own goal so it’s not actually a direct kick. Corners are weird like that).