England v Sweden Match Thread

[Neil Young]

I was wondering this too. However, it makes sense. Haven't looked it up but I think I can see the rationale behind it.

I think the idea is that it was going in when the attacker hit it, how many players it deflects off and where it was going after each deflection is irrelevant, it only becomes an own goal if the ball was either deemed under the defending team's full control first or if the attacker's shot was not going in to start with.

If that is how it works, it's silly.

If a shot is going wide before a defender deflects it, then it's given as an own goal, because if it hadn't been for the defender's touch, it wouldn't have been a goal.

By the same token, if a shot is going in, the goalie saves it so it's going past the post and then a defender deflects it into the net, then surely it's an own goal too, because if it hadn't been for the defenders touch, it wouldn't have been a goal.

Has it really been awarded to Mellberg then? It was given to Johnson on the on-screen caption.

[Kenneth]

Yup, tried doing it to Gerrard in the Carling Cup Semi Finals when taking his second penalty of the tie.

Pure evil.

[Muddled]

Pure evil.

I don't mind it to be honest, loads get said on the pitch, you just give as much as you take.

[Vermilion]

If that is how it works, it's silly.

If a shot is going wide before a defender deflects it, then it's given as an own goal, because if it hadn't been for the defender's touch, it wouldn't have been a goal.

By the same token, if a shot is going in, the goalie saves it so it's going past the post and then a defender deflects it into the net, then surely it's an own goal too, because if it hadn't been for the defenders touch, it wouldn't have been a goal.

Has it really been awarded to Mellberg then? It was given to Johnson on the on-screen caption.

Yes, and No.

BBC.


Haha, the uefa site says this...so NO.. Bloody BBC giving me a bum steer! So not my fault, and i did check Uefa's site to clear the issue up, so credit where it's due.

[Neil Young]

The BBC has been crap recently. The false excitement about the bleeding jubilee (although I'll concede it's pretty much a requirement for them to go OTT on such things), all this brown-nosing of the Bodge, The Apprentice, Eastenders, cloud ruining the transit of Venus, Engelbert Humperdinck, fight them on the beaches, I have a dream, Reith turning in his grave, Maggie Thatcher, your boys took a hell of a beating...

Er, where was I? Oh yeah, Dan McNulty - ****.

[lickedlollipop]

apparently this was good game, and I missed it. at least i had fun and got drunk :shy:

[Red_Polo]

If that is how it works, it's silly.

If a shot is going wide before a defender deflects it, then it's given as an own goal, because if it hadn't been for the defender's touch, it wouldn't have been a goal.

By the same token, if a shot is going in, the goalie saves it so it's going past the post and then a defender deflects it into the net, then surely it's an own goal too, because if it hadn't been for the defenders touch, it wouldn't have been a goal.

Has it really been awarded to Mellberg then? It was given to Johnson on the on-screen caption.

It's just an extension of the exact same thinking, that it is primarily due to the shot that the ball end up in the back of the net. Though you can then argue to take it further, doesn't matter whether it was going in initially (Which I wouldn't, due to unquestionable silliness.)

It's all pretty arbitrary and meaningless really, and ultimately I'd sooner the line drawn so more attackers get rewarded.

[Neil Young]

But exactly, how far back are you going to go with it?

Mellberg shoots, it's on target, Hart parries it, Johnson clears it, Carroll controls the clearance, passes it back to Parker, he passes it to Cole, then to Lescott, then Terry who passes it to Johnson, who under pressure from Elmander, passes it to Hart, who isn't looking because he's arguing with Ibrahimovic, and, without anyone else touching it, the ball rolls slowly into the net.

GOAL ALERT
England 1 Sweden 1 (Mellberg 49)



Yes, it doesn't matter that much but none of it does really. It's still silly though.

[Vermilion]

[Shaggy]

On another note, and it's a bit early, but it's becoming more likely that England will face Spain in the QF.

*sniggers*

It's funny on the face of it but it's a no lose for Hodgson. Very depressing. I see the media are lauding him now, "hasn't put a foot wrong so far" etc. Struggled to overcome a truly dismal Sweden side and people are crowing about him and England winning it LOL.

He can't lose v Spain.

[Neil Young]

It's funny on the face of it but it's a no lose for Hodgson. Very depressing. I see the media are lauding him now, "hasn't put a foot wrong so far" etc. Struggled to overcome a truly dismal Sweden side and people are crowing about him and England winning it LOL.

He can't lose v Spain.

He better had though. I thought Chelsea wouldn't beat Barcelona. And then Bayern.

And it might be Croatia or Italy. F*ck, England could actually win the group.

[Shaggy]

Horrible isn't it

[Trippendicular]

It's funny on the face of it but it's a no lose for Hodgson. Very depressing. I see the media are lauding him now, "hasn't put a foot wrong so far" etc. Struggled to overcome a truly dismal Sweden side and people are crowing about him and England winning it LOL.

He can't lose v Spain.

I don't know, the English media will turn on anyone given half a chance. It seemed to me that everyone turned on the team after losing to Germany two years ago, even though Germany were the far superior team and England were unlucky (Lampard's goal would have changed the complexion of the game). I think if England get decisively beaten by Spain (which they will), the media will turn on him and the old blame game will be revived. Fingers crossed in any case.

[Shaggy]

I hope you're right.

[ChesterDave]

The media turned after the German game because we had a sneaky foreigner in charge. Now we have a true English warrior hero at the helm it will be valliant failure.