Can stat-checkers stop with this crap?

[SuarezN7]

Hey, as a striker and former admin of other leagues this grinds my gears. Today Ferry mentioned to me how close to 1/3 of our goals scored were own goals. I decided to check those 10 own goals out of curiosity and 3 of them have to be 100% goals for the attacker.

"1.16 A goal shall be credited to the offensive player who last touched the ball before it went into the goal provided that the ball was on target after the last touch. If the ball is on target and will definitely go in when an opponent player kicks into his own net it will still be given as a goal for the attacker. Any other instance i.e when the shot is off target and deflects off an opponent will be given as an own goal." - So FM is using basically the football rule regarding own goals. It seems like all the stat-checkers have no idea what the rule is or don't care to implement it.
This is not the first time I've seen clear goals been put as an own goal, for countless seasons this has been a problem. I took 45 minutes of my day to check the own goals of First Division this season and found 14 goals that should've been given to the attacker, instead they were added as own goals. (If anyone wants to spend some time and check the Second Division own goals be my guest, I don't have more time to do that.)
Note: those cases are only ones where the shot is on target and there is 1 deflection/kick from the defender, since double deflection shouldn't count as the attacker's shot anymore.

viewtopic.php?f=458&t=9144#p81521
2-3 | 20:12 | GQKU og https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... dbfa7727a9

viewtopic.php?f=458&t=9232#p81873
0-2 | 12:25 | Kyrai (ROCKYBALBOA) owngoal https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... 875cd041ff

viewtopic.php?f=458&t=9238#p81917
1-0 | 2:20 | OG - Azure () https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... a953cb0a4c

viewtopic.php?f=458&t=9255#p81973
0-1 | 33:55 | OG - Hannes https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... 4b3617bca3

viewtopic.php?f=458&t=9091#p81353
2-0 | 17:14 | OG - Azure () https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... fffbcd0bd9

viewtopic.php?f=458&t=9232#p81922
1-2 | 13:23 | OG - TotalPlayer () https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... 1599675701

viewtopic.php?f=458&t=9102#p81395
0-2 | 6:55 | OG - TotalPlayer () https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... ea99178782

viewtopic.php?f=458&t=9195#p81704
0-1 | 2:20 | OG - Hannes () https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... 2d10c4f6e1

viewtopic.php?f=458&t=9144#p81523
0-5 | 4:00 | OG - Hannes () https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... 33063ed99f

viewtopic.php?f=458&t=9125#p81440
0-5 | 14:34 | OG - Buxton () https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... e7d95ee363

viewtopic.php?f=458&t=9209#p81797
1-1 | 6:25 | OG - vegeta https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... 12aa3a866b

viewtopic.php?f=458&t=9056#p81084
0-1 | 14:30 | Kise OG *** https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... 5bf0407207

viewtopic.php?f=458&t=9199#p81722
0-2 | 3:05 | OG - Maze () https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... f3e25052fa

viewtopic.php?f=458&t=9056#p81295
1-1 | 13:00 | OG - ROCKYBALBOA () https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... 8eb478dfea

Take a look for yourselves and tell me aren't all these shots on target?

Before you say that I'm just crying for my stats, fix the other goals and keep my team goals as own goals. I'm posting this to bring some light to this issue, because honestly I know how annoying it is. Some of these own goals that were given are blatant example of defender just kicking the ball millimeters before it goes in to potentially rob the attacker of their goal.

[tSharky]

GQKU own goal is hard to give an answer.
kyrai and rocky - Azure changed ball trajectory so it resulted on a goal... the gk was going to defend it.

Azure own goal... the spam was going up like to the post or after the post... Azure changed ball trajectory.

Hannes own goal - The ball wasn't going in...with hannes' touch the ball went to the goal... resulted on an own goal.

2-0 | 17:14 | OG - Azure () https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... fffbcd0bd9 Definitely a goal in my opinion.

1-2 | 13:23 | OG - TotalPlayer () https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... 1599675701 - Hard to say but olee was first on the ball and he kicked it inside the goal It didn't change ball's trajectory


0-2 | 6:55 | OG - TotalPlayer () https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... ea99178782 - Totally own goal... no need to say more.

0-1 | 2:20 | OG - Hannes () https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... 2d10c4f6e1 - the goalkeeper had the ball and it would NEVER go in... Hannes literally put the ball inside the goal leading that into an owngoal.. He shoot it, it wasn't a deflection.

0-5 | 4:00 | OG - Hannes () https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... 33063ed99f - Answered this on the previous. Same situation. Totally own goal.


0-5 | 14:34 | OG - Buxton () https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... e7d95ee363 - Should have been a goal in my opinion.


1-1 | 6:25 | OG - vegeta https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... 12aa3a866b - He saved it ... also he had time to clear the ball. Anyways, this would be a tough situation for any stat checker/stat analyser.

0-1 | 14:30 | Kise OG *** https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... 5bf0407207 - Ball was going to hit 2nd post. Kise had a touch and he put the ball inside the goal although we could consider this as a rebound

0-2 | 3:05 | OG - Maze () https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... f3e25052fa - I would've considered a goal tbh.


1-1 | 13:00 | OG - ROCKYBALBOA () https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... 8eb478dfea - Own goal, he did it on purpose to cut.

Now replying to what you said... Just because you're saying that it's a shot on the target, It doesn't really mean that It will be a goal. We need to keep in mind all the other facts that I had in consideration during my analyses here.

This is my opinion about it... Most of these situations were correct... I don't know why you are so mad about it.

[SuarezN7]

Man the point is not if the goalkeeper had a chance of saving it. The point is that just as in football if someone takes a shot on target and the ball touches a defender on it's way through the goal is given to the attacker. Read the rule from the rule-book:

"1.16 A goal shall be credited to the offensive player who last touched the ball before it went into the goal provided that the ball was on target after the last touch." All of these were on target.
"If the ball is on target and will definitely go in when an opponent player kicks into his own net it will still be given as a goal for the attacker." This is the one part of the rule that you are following but not the top part?
"Any other instance i.e when the shot is off target and deflects off an opponent will be given as an own goal." Neither of these were off-target.

So is the rule wrong or are you wrong? You can't be seriously following 2/3 of the rule and ignoring the other 1/3 because it doesn't follows your ideology of a goal/own goal...

[sw1zy]

Man the point is not if the goalkeeper had a chance of saving it. The point is that just as in football if someone takes a shot on target and the ball touches a defender on it's way through the goal is given to the attacker. Read the rule from the rule-book:

"1.16 A goal shall be credited to the offensive player who last touched the ball before it went into the goal provided that the ball was on target after the last touch." All of these were on target.
"If the ball is on target and will definitely go in when an opponent player kicks into his own net it will still be given as a goal for the attacker." This is the one part of the rule that you are following but not the top part?
"Any other instance i.e when the shot is off target and deflects off an opponent will be given as an own goal." Neither of these were off-target.

So is the rule wrong or are you wrong? You can't be seriously following 2/3 of the rule and ignoring the other 1/3 because it doesn't follows your ideology of a goal/own goal...

Only 1/2 goals that u showed ''definitely go in''.

[SuarezN7]

Man the point is not if the goalkeeper had a chance of saving it. The point is that just as in football if someone takes a shot on target and the ball touches a defender on it's way through the goal is given to the attacker. Read the rule from the rule-book:

"1.16 A goal shall be credited to the offensive player who last touched the ball before it went into the goal provided that the ball was on target after the last touch." All of these were on target.
"If the ball is on target and will definitely go in when an opponent player kicks into his own net it will still be given as a goal for the attacker." This is the one part of the rule that you are following but not the top part?
"Any other instance i.e when the shot is off target and deflects off an opponent will be given as an own goal." Neither of these were off-target.

So is the rule wrong or are you wrong? You can't be seriously following 2/3 of the rule and ignoring the other 1/3 because it doesn't follows your ideology of a goal/own goal...

Only 1/2 goals that u showed ''definitely go in''.

You are missing the point of what I'm saying and what the rule is implying. Read it again because you are disregarding the first part.

[lsco]

Some of the cases you shared are really own goals.
But overall i agree... so many clear assists were taken away from me over the years

[wroz]

Good point, maybe stat-checkers will pay more attention to these kinds of situations after that post.

But overall i agree... so many clear assists were taken away from me over the years

same...

[Gary]

1. Should be a goal for the attacker. I can't see an OG unless the ball stops completely before GQKU kicks it.
5. Should be a goal for Necro.
6. Should be a goal for Olee.
10. Should be a goal for the attacker, similar to 1st replay.
13. Difficult one. Maze could have saved it if he didn't spam x while moving. A goal, imo.

All of the others are own goals as the shots weren't on target. Some were on target, however the GK would have saved it.

It would be useful if the "stat-checkers" leave a comment for why they think it's an own goal, then if you disagree you can challenge it.

[Smurf2]

just ask the person that checked your match why is it an OG, it happens when you make a mistake after going over 20 matches when half of the goals people are trying to get themselves assists when they had nothing to do with the goal.
tbh the thread should be for the captains who publish the results

[socrates]

This part of the rule should be removed imo as it leads to some confusion.

If the ball is on target and will definitely go in when an opponent player kicks into his own net it will still be given as a goal for the attacker.

I think the intention behind the rule was that even if the gk would save it that it would still be classed as a goal to the attacker. At least that is how I viewed it when I used to do result checking. I think by "definitely go in" it meant that ball was on target and with enough power to cross the line. It was not meant to be judging whether a gk would make a save or not as this can lead to debatable situations.

Either way I would not blame the stat-checkers as it is not clear what that rule means. They are helping out a lot and just trying to do their best from how they interpret the rules.

Best solution would be for the admins to clarify what should happen in this situation and make sure all results checkers are on the same page in future.

[SuarezN7]

This part of the rule should be removed imo as it leads to some confusion.

If the ball is on target and will definitely go in when an opponent player kicks into his own net it will still be given as a goal for the attacker.

I think the intention behind the rule was that even if the gk would save it that it would still be classed as a goal to the attacker. At least that is how I viewed it when I used to do result checking. I think by "definitely go in" it meant that ball was on target and with enough power to cross the line. It was not meant to be judging whether a gk would make a save or not as this can lead to debatable situations.

Either way I would not blame the stat-checkers as it is not clear what that rule means. They are helping out a lot and just trying to do their best from how they interpret the rules.

Best solution would be for the admins to clarify what should happen in this situation and make sure all results checkers are on the same page in future.

Yes this is exactly what I'm saying. I've grown with watching football where the rule is that if the player shot on target no matter if deflection or not the goal should be counted as his. Today while I was watching Liverpool, that's exactly what happened: Sadio Mane shot on target, the ball touched Cahill's leg, the goalkeeper pushed the ball, it hit the left post then it hit the right post and went in. And sure as hell that is Mane's goal and you have to be crazy to deny it. Well since this is a game based on football why would we not follow the same thought (rule wise we are, but it's not being implemented). https://streamvi.com/watch.php?video=1574525218
Pretty sure this is the easiest way to make everyone happy, since you know that if you shoot and it's on target the goal would be counted as yours. There would not be any need of the stat-checkers to use personal emotions if it should be a goal or an own goal. Because currently we end up with every match's stats being graded differently. Attackers would be happy, I'd assume defenders too, since no one wants to be that guy who scores own goals.

[sw1zy]

This part of the rule should be removed imo as it leads to some confusion.

If the ball is on target and will definitely go in when an opponent player kicks into his own net it will still be given as a goal for the attacker.

I think the intention behind the rule was that even if the gk would save it that it would still be classed as a goal to the attacker. At least that is how I viewed it when I used to do result checking. I think by "definitely go in" it meant that ball was on target and with enough power to cross the line. It was not meant to be judging whether a gk would make a save or not as this can lead to debatable situations.

Either way I would not blame the stat-checkers as it is not clear what that rule means. They are helping out a lot and just trying to do their best from how they interpret the rules.

Best solution would be for the admins to clarify what should happen in this situation and make sure all results checkers are on the same page in future.

Yes this is exactly what I'm saying. I've grown with watching football where the rule is that if the player shot on target no matter if deflection or not the goal should be counted as his. Today while I was watching Liverpool, that's exactly what happened: Sadio Mane shot on target, the ball touched Cahill's leg, the goalkeeper pushed the ball, it hit the left post then it hit the right post and went in. And sure as hell that is Mane's goal and you have to be crazy to deny it. Well since this is a game based on football why would we not follow the same thought (rule wise we are, but it's not being implemented). https://streamvi.com/watch.php?video=1574525218
Pretty sure this is the easiest way to make everyone happy, since you know that if you shoot and it's on target the goal would be counted as yours. There would not be any need of the stat-checkers to use personal emotions if it should be a goal or an own goal. Because currently we end up with every match's stats being graded differently. Attackers would be happy, I'd assume defenders too, since no one wants to be that guy who scores own goals.

So you´re basically saying that this goal https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... ea99178782 6:53 should have the same criterion as this one https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... fffbcd0bd9 17:10? If so of course i disagree. (Im putting your own exemples of what should be considered a clean goal)

[EdinsonCavani]

ahhahahaha

[SuarezN7]

So you´re basically saying that this goal https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... ea99178782 6:53 should have the same criterion as this one https://thehax.pl/forum/powtorki.php?na ... fffbcd0bd9 17:10? If so of course i disagree. (Im putting your own exemples of what should be considered a clean goal)

Yes and for me the criteria should be shooting on target. I see you said clean goal, that's why maybe we disagree with each other. Wouldn't you say that in both situations the ball was going inside the door if the defender didn't kick/touch? In the first one saviola is standing still and clicking x then total came and kicked it in, in my opinion saviola wasn't saving that. So the only thing left is to see if the shot would go in directly where it would be up to the stat checkers to look at the situation once twice thrice. (Inside of the post is on target since with that power it would go in, because someone mentioned earlier that post isn't on target and it would be rebound.) Anyways I think we saw what both sides think, so let's see what the admins would say.

[aeRo]

just score clean goals wtf