Going by laws of the game: did Mannus score an own goal against Derry?

[legendz]

The Derry goal last night came from an indirect free-kick taken by Lafferty. As it was an indirect free-kick, surely Lafferty was the only player on the field of play who could not score a goal at that time. As the ball did wind up in the net having touched Mannus, surely it was a Mannus own goal? To register it as a Lafferty goal would surely mean the one player who could not score from an indirect free-kick had scored, which surely cannot happen?

[Dillonman]

The Derry goal last night came from an indirect free-kick taken by Lafferty. As it was an indirect free-kick, surely Lafferty was the only player on the field of play who could not score a goal at that time. As the ball did wind up in the net having touched Mannus, surely it was a Mannus own goal? To register it as a Lafferty goal would surely mean the one player who could not score from an indirect free-kick had scored, which surely cannot happen?

If it was indirect why did he shoot?

[SwanVsDalton]

If it was indirect why did he shoot?

Think Lafferty didn't know it was indirect, maybe misread the referee. Or maybe he intended Mannus to make a hames of it.

[outspoken]

Lafferty knew it was a indirect free kick im sure i think he just took a gamble that it would touch someone on the way in ad yes i agree it should go down as an og.

[legendz]

I thought the idea was to float it in and for someone to get a flick header to it?

In the Indo it says: "Ironically, the free had been indirect anyway so had he not touched it the goal wouldn't have counted." Surely as a result, the goal was an own goal? The touch from Mannus is the only reason the goal stood??

[DannyInvincible]

Think Lafferty didn't know it was indirect, maybe misread the referee. Or maybe he intended Mannus to make a hames of it.

I was watching some bits again last night on the RTÉ Player and I can't see how Lafferty wouldn't have known, so I don't know what he was actually thinking with taking the shot in the first place, ha. After the referee gave an indirect free-kick for obstruction, he held his hand in the air for the duration of the build-up (signalling it was indirect) until he actually blew his whistle to signal it was OK to take it. He's also seen explaining that the free-kick is indirect to the two or three Derry players standing around the ball until he measures the distance back for the wall. By then, only Lafferty is standing anywhere near the ball, strangely showing intentions to take a kick at goal, so the players in the Rovers wall were sleeping in my book. They'd have been better without a wall given there was no indication that any side-pass was imminent.

Or could we just sum all of that up as a stroke of genius? :cool:

By the way, I don't think the second of Doherty's quick-fire double saves went over the line either, although the camera angles weren't much good for providing a definitive answer.

[DannyInvincible]

I thought the idea was to float it in and for someone to get a flick header to it?

In the Indo it says: "Ironically, the free had been indirect anyway so had he not touched it the goal wouldn't have counted." Surely as a result, the goal was an own goal? The touch from Mannus is the only reason the goal stood??

Has it been officially registered as Lafferty's goal? It is an interesting one.

[bluewhitearmy]

Lafferty knew it was a indirect free kick im sure i think he just took a gamble that it would touch someone on the way in ad yes i agree it should go down as an og.

That would make no sense imo.

[DannyInvincible]

From page 36 of the 2010-11 FIFA Laws of the Game (http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/RulesandRegulations/~/media/Files/PDF/Get%20into%20Football/Referees/LOTG201011.ashx/LOTG201011.pdf):


The indirect free kick

Signal
The referee indicates an indirect free kick by raising his arm above his head. He maintains his arm in that position until the kick has been taken and the ball has touched another player or goes out of play.

Ball enters the goal
A goal can be scored only if the ball subsequently touches another player before it enters the goal:

• if an indirect free kick is kicked directly into the opponents’ goal, a goal kick is awarded
• if an indirect free kick is kicked directly into the team’s own goal, a corner kick is awarded to the opposing team

Not sure if there's any indication who should be granted the goal though or if an own-goal should be designated.

[outspoken]

That would make no sense imo.

Why not? I am a referee myself and on many occasions I have seen players just smash it when its an indirect free-kick hoping it will get a touch some where along the line and a lot of the time it works

[DannyInvincible]

Just watching it again and the ref holds his arm in the air the whole time until he just ends up out of vision before Mannus makes a hames of it. Was definitely an indirect free-kick and a perfectly fine goal, whatever about who ought to be awarded it.

[A N Mouse]

I don't think the laws of the game deal with who gets credited for scoring - on motd lawro is fond of citing the 'dubious goals committee', and while I'm not sure such a thing exists there is some kind of process for official statistics.

The standard seems to be that a shot on target is credited to whoever took the the shot unless a 'significant' deflection takes place. Now usually that means the deflection had a significant impact on the trajectory of the ball. So if Lafferty's free had been direct then it's definitely his goal.

However given it was an indirect free Mannus' touch was 'significant', in that the goal couldn't have stood without it. So I think you're correct it that it should go down as an og.

[DannyInvincible]

Why not? I am a referee myself and on many occasions I have seen players just smash it when its an indirect free-kick hoping it will get a touch some where along the line and a lot of the time it works

It'd make sense to me. It's a good idea. The instinctive reaction of a goalkeeper or defender is to touch it.

[Dillonman]

I thought the idea was to float it in and for someone to get a flick header to it?

In the Indo it says: "Ironically, the free had been indirect anyway so had he not touched it the goal wouldn't have counted." Surely as a result, the goal was an own goal? The touch from Mannus is the only reason the goal stood??

Its the Airtricity League refs, off course it would have stood, Hancock would prob have allowed it.

[DannyInvincible]

Its the Airtricity League refs, off course it would have stood, Hancock would prob have allowed it.

He wouldn't have. He was clearly alert to what was going on as he held his arm in the air until Mannus had touched the ball. It was commendable refereeing that demonstrated awareness.

[bluewhitearmy]

Why not? I am a referee myself and on many occasions I have seen players just smash it when its an indirect free-kick hoping it will get a touch some where along the line and a lot of the time it works

Beacuse if he was hoping for that he would have put it where the biggest crowd of players was surely?
He didnt do that.

[nigel-harps1954]

I didn't see the goal but generally wouldn't it have to be going off target for it to be credited as a Mannus own goal? He would have to have directed it into the goal from the shot going off target. If it was going on target and hit Mannus, then its a Lafferty goal but if going off target and hit Mannus, then its a Mannus OG.

[legendz]

I didn't see the goal but generally wouldn't it have to be going off target for it to be credited as a Mannus own goal? He would have to have directed it into the goal from the shot going off target. If it was going on target and hit Mannus, then its a Lafferty goal but if going off target and hit Mannus, then its a Mannus OG.

2002: Peter Enckelman, then goalkeeper for Aston Villa, scored an own goal during a Birmingham derby in 2002 after miskicking a throw-in from Olof Mellberg. If he had not touched the ball, a goal could not have been given straight from a throw-in. It was his touch which had the ball active and it's why it was his OG.

Lafferty as taker of the indirect free-kick last night was the one player who could not score from kicking the ball. Mannus' touch made the ball active in play so it is surely his OG, being on target or not. If Mannus hadn't touched the ball, they'd have been given a goal-kick. Surely it is his OG?

[Mr A]

Clearly an OG I think.

Mind you I remember St Pats scoring from an indirect free kick against us at Finn Park.. I think our keeper even let it go in rather than risk the sort of thing that happened Mannus.. but then the ref went ahead and awarded. Probably the single worst piece of reffing I've ever seen.

[legendz]

Wasn't a replay ordered once by FIFA, something to do with a technicality due to an indirect free-kick being awarded instead of a penalty being retaken in a WC qualifier? Harps would've had a case after that terrible piece of reffing.

[SkStu]

MNS Twitter - Mannus officially credited with o.g. last night.

http://twitter.com/#!/rtemns

[legendz]

MNS Twitter - Mannus officially credited with o.g. last night.

http://twitter.com/#!/rtemns

Good stuff!

[legendz]

http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2011/0708/derry_shamrovers1.html

Under the picture on the match report they went with: Daniel Lafferty - Celebrates his goal.

It should read his assist!

[DannyInvincible]

I didn't see the goal but generally wouldn't it have to be going off target for it to be credited as a Mannus own goal? He would have to have directed it into the goal from the shot going off target. If it was going on target and hit Mannus, then its a Lafferty goal but if going off target and hit Mannus, then its a Mannus OG.

Technically, you could argue it was going ("out") for a goal-kick until Mannus touched it. His touch was the significant factor and the equivalent of a player knocking it on target in another situation, so it would be correct to put it down as a Mannus OG in my mind.

[mypost]

I didn't see the goal but generally wouldn't it have to be going off target for it to be credited as a Mannus own goal? He would have to have directed it into the goal from the shot going off target. If it was going on target and hit Mannus, then its a Lafferty goal but if going off target and hit Mannus, then its a Mannus OG.

It's an og, end of. Mannus knew it was an og too, by his reaction.

I don't abide by the "on-off target" business. Imo, if a shot is deflected in a different direction, it's an og. If the shot isn't sent in a different direction, e.g Robbie Keane v Macedonia, then the goal is credited to the attacker. On Friday, Mannus has hold of the ball, lets it slip and it goes in. Own Goal.

[legendz]

It's an og, end of. Mannus knew it was an og too, by his reaction.

I don't abide by the "on-off target" business. Imo, if a shot is deflected in a different direction, it's an og. If the shot isn't sent in a different direction, e.g Robbie Keane v Macedonia, then the goal is credited to the attacker. On Friday, Mannus has hold of the ball, lets it slip and it goes in. Own Goal.

The only reason this is an OG is because it was an indirect free-kick. The ball was on target, had it got straight in, the goal would've been disallowed and a goal kick awarded. Mannus' touch made the ball active hence it is his own goal as his touch is the only reason the goal stood.

[outspoken]

Beacuse if he was hoping for that he would have put it where the biggest crowd of players was surely?
He didnt do that.

The biggest crowd of players would have been dead center of the wall and unless it had massive power it wouldn't have gone through so like I said he just took a gamble and like someone said above mannus instinct would have been to save it he didn't have time to think il let this in.

[fionnsci]

Off the point but someone earlier mentioned kicking the ball in the direction of opposition players from an indirect free kick in the hope that it would rebound off them into the net. Anyway, I read once of a ref penalising this, calling it unsportsmanlike conduct, and awarding an indirect free out. I'm a ref, never would have done that before but it's certainly food for thought. You can see how kicking the ball at an opponent deliberately could be considered an offence.

[TheBoss]

Since we are about Goalie OG's, Philly Hughes was given this goal, but should it be an own goal, looks like the goalie had it and then dropped it in the net. Goal about 02:15.


http://vimeo.com/25102552

[brendy_éire]

You can see how kicking the ball at an opponent deliberately could be considered an offence.

No-one is ever punished for a striker kicking the ball against a defender to win a corner though. IMO, it'd be fair enough to kick an indirect free-kick at an opponent, so long as there was no deliberate attempt to injure the player.

[Dodge]

http://inform.fai.ie/Statsportal/Fixtures.aspx?fixtureID=7138&matchID=8944

There's the offical report.

[A N Mouse]

Off the point but someone earlier mentioned kicking the ball in the direction of opposition players from an indirect free kick in the hope that it would rebound off them into the net. Anyway, I read once of a ref penalising this, calling it unsportsmanlike conduct, and awarding an indirect free out. I'm a ref, never would have done that before but it's certainly food for thought. You can see how kicking the ball at an opponent deliberately could be considered an offence.

Interesting one.

I think it would depend on where the original free was awarded. Inside the box, such that the opponents are unable to retreat the full distance then blasting the ball goalward in the hope of getting a deflection is definitely unsporting - and I suppose deliberately blasting an indirect free at a wall could count similarly.

[SkStu]

if the defender is standing between the ball and the net then it is very difficult to say it is unsporting, or at the least it is impossible to prove that such an action was intentional and unsporting. It would be a brave, brave ref that awarded a free out for that "offence".

[brendy_éire]

According to Danny Lafferty, he didn't realise it was indirect and was hitting a shot on goal.
It was only during the celebrations the other players told him it was indirect, but at that stage he didn't really care.