None of the ones I have seen are "proper" own goals. They are still, as usual, defenders doing desperate clears in front of attackers that would have scored 999 times out of 1000 if the defender had let it be. Those in my view shoulnd't even count as "own goals" as they currently do. The passer should get the goal and that should be the end of it. This is how it works elsewhere like in ice hockey and others.
Counting "own goals" as any goal where a defender is last to touch the ball and it wouldn't have gone into the goal otherwise is simple but it's just not useful. The skill is setting the defender in that impossible situation to begin with, and it's the attackers' effort that does it. It's filed together with true own goals which are mistakes - and it's silly.
"Proper" own goals where a normal goal isn't almost a given in the milliseconds after, are still extremely rare and always were.
I agree with what you say, but the question that TFA asks is still relevant, since 'own goals' have always been counted the way they are. So the number of own goals is still higher than usual.
I think the reason is because there is more at stake. Take last night for example. The defender busted a gut to get back to try and cut out the cross, even though the chances of doing so were minimal - the end result being he put it into his own net. In a normal league game the defender would likely have just accepted his team's fate and Sterling would have had an easy tap in.
And yet there's some doubt as to whether the OG is attributed correctly. Most people who watch football would say Simon f*cked up badly. But records are gonna say Pedri did it. What we really want records to reflect is the responsible part, no? Even that ends up in a bit of a grey area if we consider that a lot of goals are scored as tap-ins where the credit should really go to someone who unlocked the defense.
Yep, that's hard to attribute to an attacker with maximum effort, so should count as one of those extremely rare own goals. My guess (without having seen all the games) is that it's just 1-2 in the tournament, and that the figure historically has been just 0..2 as well. What would stand out would be if there were 4-5 such goals in a tournament. Not that there is a dozen of the "defender own-goals from the goal-line" type.
there is, IMO, a very simple answer to this: Own goals were often attributed to the last person to hit the ball from the attacking team.
The defender (or other, but usually defender) didn't want the own goal and the attacker did - it was a system that suited everyone.
Take a look at this goal by 'rio ferdinand' in the 2002 World Cup - this is given as Rio's goal - that would be inconcievable today, its clearly an own goal. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/21785916
Why has the attribution suddenly changed this tournament?
Edit: I just watched the clip you linked - are you saying that was an own goal because the goalkeeper touched it? That’s just a fumbling attempt at a save. That sort of thing has never been considered an own goal, and wouldn’t be in the current tournament either.
No. Despite not being recognised as such by FIFA, this is clearly an own goal. Even at the time people were surpised by FIFAs decision
"It is hard to define the reasoning behind Fifa's decision to award England's opening goal to Rio Ferdinand since he headed David Beckham's corner away from the net before Thomas Sorensen fumbled the ball back over the line. That was an own-goal and no argument."
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2002/jun/17/worldcupfoo...
"The goal is clearly a Sørensen own goal but despite the availability of TV replays, FIFA officially credit the goal to Rio Ferdinand."
Source: https://www.englandstats.com/matches.php?mid=794
Compared to 2002 there's now much more high-quality, high-speed video being recorded - and soccer authorities recently started using VAR (Video Assistant Referee).
Soccer was slow to adopt instant replays; IIRC the official reason for this was the sport's governing bodies didn't want to widen the chasm between the top leagues and the grass roots game.
As you yourself point out downthread, the award of this goal was disputed at the time, and the guidance hasn't changed. Plus unlike the Ferdinand header, nobody could have thought the cross that Kjaer diverted into his own net last night was a shot on target.
It might be a factor in some goals not being recorded as own goals in the dim and distant days before multi-angle TV replays, but can't possibly explain a spectacular rise in own goals since 2016. Ferdinand-style goal awards are as rare if not rarer than recorded own goals in recent tournament history
Also it makes no sense to attribute a rebound on a defender to the defender (Spain-Switzerland, own Goal by the switzerland defender which is just a kick by J. Alba).
It definitely seems soccer is becoming more and more efficient. The games of the EM in particular feel like watching one brick wall against another, goals mostly happening by sheer brute force and stacking probabilities in ones favor. May be it's just imagination, but I think in the past there used to be more fun, elegant plays. Kinda reminds me of online games when a meta has settled and at the highest level everything is purely optimized for winning.
I think that's why I've been enjoying women's football more (well, that, and my country only recently starting performing well): it's still at an earlier stage with more variance. Or I think that that's the reason for it.
Adding World Cup data shows a similar uptick but makes the series messier (last few World Cups in reverse order: 12, 5, 2,4, 3, 6, 1).
World Cup has more participating teams and usually more mismatches which partly explains the larger numbers.
The Euros added more games in 2016 and back in 1996, and only had four teams participating pre-1980, which plays a large role in why so few own goals were scored back then, but size alone can't explain the jump in 2018/2021 tournaments. Either it's a statistical anomaly or tactics
Croatia did a full proper own goal, most likely due to nervousness and maybe a bit of orientation loss.
All the others have been mere redirected shots from opponents, some of which would have landed or not, thus, so to say "forced auto goals".
Other issue is why was the penalty given to England last night, they had video review and I am still wondering how that could qualify as a malicious foul. I suppose it's the same rule with hands on ball, intentional or not doesn't seem to matter.
Other issue is why was the penalty given to England last night, they had video review and I am still wondering how that could qualify as a malicious foul. I suppose it's the same rule with hands on ball, intentional or not doesn't seem to matter.
A penalty doesn't require malice, only an offence inside the penalty area that would otherwise qualify for a direct free kick. If the ref had thought it was malicious, he would have been reaching for his card pocket as well.
Once the ref has made a subjective decision, VAR will only change the outcome if there has been a clear and obvious error by the referee.
I think there's a number of trends that are all tied to video refereeing:
- Offsides seem to be called more correctly. This is maybe a good thing, the only issue is it's often not obvious to the fans exactly what the law is, ie which body part is the offside point?
- More penalties. Stats are clear on this, the number of penalties in the last year or two has rocketed. I suspect this is because the laws of the game were written before vidrefs were a thing, and when you have video the grey zone can be sharpened. The interesting thing is of course there's been video replays since forever, they just haven't been used by refs. So we can actually go back in time and check if hands-on in the box actually happened just as often.
- More own goals is probably a change in attribution. With vidrefs being a thing you can move away from using common sense and just say "whoever touched it last". For the people who decide the attribution it's easier than deciding those corner cases where someone kicked it but the defender also sorta touched it.
I wish they would use the videos to detect and punish simulation. There will always be some borderline cases, but where a player is untouched (or touched in a completely different area) and then kicks off, hurtling to the ground while screaming in agony, and then jumps up as soon as the play resumes.
The game would be better without so much focus and time spent on playing to trick the referee. Having teams that are more evenly matched as ever and adding more penalties without addressing simulation will make for a boring game in the end that is just a contest of whoever can fool the referee better to get an advantage.
For example, the English Premier League this year finished on 23rd May and starts again on 13th August (82 days rest). Last year, teams played 9-10 games between the COVID resumption on 19th June and league finish on 26th July. There were then just 48 days rest until the next season started on 12th September 2020.
The continental competitions (Champions League and Europa League) were also played during August 2020 meaning many players at top clubs had next to zero break between the two seasons. This has all had a knock-on effect to this tournament. I'm actually surprised there haven't been more injuries.
P.s. Small nitpick but the "European Cup" is the aforementioned Champions League trophy which is contested by the top club teams in Europe. The current international tournament is the European Championships or Euros.
Doesn't seem plausible that stress causes a factor of x10 or whatever number of OGs. Were there a huge number of OGs in all the other tournaments as well?
Stress just doesn't seem plausible. It would mean that WC/Euro/Copa/UCL/etc final stage games would be flooded with OGs, even without Covid.
It was pretty hot during most games, especially in the first weeks. Maybe that was a factor. Maybe the strategy to involve players more actively in defense was also relevant. Most own goals were tries to kick the ball away from the penalty area and perhaps it was just bad luck in many cases.
Well, teams are allowed 5 substitutions rather than the usual 3 because many European competitions were extended (and hence close to the Cup) due to Covid, so possibly that played a role?
Maybe an extension to the "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no": "If the headline starts with 'Why' and ends with a question mark, then no explanation will be given".
“If you look at each one and how they’ve occurred, many have come from “dangerous areas” on the pitch. At AS Monaco over the last season, we looked at where and how goals were most often scored and key areas to shoot/cross from to apply in our game model.”
With teams applying more analytics to soccer there are more cases of high goal probability crosses and defenders’ attempts to clear these are often futile. A great example was England’s equalizer yesterday that technically was an OG but realistically the defender had no chance to clear it and Sterling was right there to tap it in.
Readit News
Counting "own goals" as any goal where a defender is last to touch the ball and it wouldn't have gone into the goal otherwise is simple but it's just not useful. The skill is setting the defender in that impossible situation to begin with, and it's the attackers' effort that does it. It's filed together with true own goals which are mistakes - and it's silly.
"Proper" own goals where a normal goal isn't almost a given in the milliseconds after, are still extremely rare and always were.
And yet there's some doubt as to whether the OG is attributed correctly. Most people who watch football would say Simon f*cked up badly. But records are gonna say Pedri did it. What we really want records to reflect is the responsible part, no? Even that ends up in a bit of a grey area if we consider that a lot of goals are scored as tap-ins where the credit should really go to someone who unlocked the defense.
By that logic we should count balls that hit the goal frame before getting in as "own goals" or "nobody's goals"
The defender (or other, but usually defender) didn't want the own goal and the attacker did - it was a system that suited everyone.
Take a look at this goal by 'rio ferdinand' in the 2002 World Cup - this is given as Rio's goal - that would be inconcievable today, its clearly an own goal. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/21785916
Edit: I just watched the clip you linked - are you saying that was an own goal because the goalkeeper touched it? That’s just a fumbling attempt at a save. That sort of thing has never been considered an own goal, and wouldn’t be in the current tournament either.
"It is hard to define the reasoning behind Fifa's decision to award England's opening goal to Rio Ferdinand since he headed David Beckham's corner away from the net before Thomas Sorensen fumbled the ball back over the line. That was an own-goal and no argument." Source: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2002/jun/17/worldcupfoo...
"Beckham whipped one of his best crosses towards a leaping Ferdinand, whose header was fumbled by Sorensen for an own goal." Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport3/worldcup2002/hi/matches_wallcha...
"The goal is clearly a Sørensen own goal but despite the availability of TV replays, FIFA officially credit the goal to Rio Ferdinand." Source: https://www.englandstats.com/matches.php?mid=794
Soccer was slow to adopt instant replays; IIRC the official reason for this was the sport's governing bodies didn't want to widen the chasm between the top leagues and the grass roots game.
It might be a factor in some goals not being recorded as own goals in the dim and distant days before multi-angle TV replays, but can't possibly explain a spectacular rise in own goals since 2016. Ferdinand-style goal awards are as rare if not rarer than recorded own goals in recent tournament history
Dumb metrics of "objectivity".
Now that’s a wild stat.
I didn’t find any of the explanations convincing except possibly that teams have used analytics to increase the efficacy of their crosses.
World Cup has more participating teams and usually more mismatches which partly explains the larger numbers.
The Euros added more games in 2016 and back in 1996, and only had four teams participating pre-1980, which plays a large role in why so few own goals were scored back then, but size alone can't explain the jump in 2018/2021 tournaments. Either it's a statistical anomaly or tactics
All the others have been mere redirected shots from opponents, some of which would have landed or not, thus, so to say "forced auto goals".
Other issue is why was the penalty given to England last night, they had video review and I am still wondering how that could qualify as a malicious foul. I suppose it's the same rule with hands on ball, intentional or not doesn't seem to matter.
A penalty doesn't require malice, only an offence inside the penalty area that would otherwise qualify for a direct free kick. If the ref had thought it was malicious, he would have been reaching for his card pocket as well.
Once the ref has made a subjective decision, VAR will only change the outcome if there has been a clear and obvious error by the referee.
- Offsides seem to be called more correctly. This is maybe a good thing, the only issue is it's often not obvious to the fans exactly what the law is, ie which body part is the offside point?
- More penalties. Stats are clear on this, the number of penalties in the last year or two has rocketed. I suspect this is because the laws of the game were written before vidrefs were a thing, and when you have video the grey zone can be sharpened. The interesting thing is of course there's been video replays since forever, they just haven't been used by refs. So we can actually go back in time and check if hands-on in the box actually happened just as often.
- More own goals is probably a change in attribution. With vidrefs being a thing you can move away from using common sense and just say "whoever touched it last". For the people who decide the attribution it's easier than deciding those corner cases where someone kicked it but the defender also sorta touched it.
The game would be better without so much focus and time spent on playing to trick the referee. Having teams that are more evenly matched as ever and adding more penalties without addressing simulation will make for a boring game in the end that is just a contest of whoever can fool the referee better to get an advantage.
For example, the English Premier League this year finished on 23rd May and starts again on 13th August (82 days rest). Last year, teams played 9-10 games between the COVID resumption on 19th June and league finish on 26th July. There were then just 48 days rest until the next season started on 12th September 2020.
The continental competitions (Champions League and Europa League) were also played during August 2020 meaning many players at top clubs had next to zero break between the two seasons. This has all had a knock-on effect to this tournament. I'm actually surprised there haven't been more injuries.
P.s. Small nitpick but the "European Cup" is the aforementioned Champions League trophy which is contested by the top club teams in Europe. The current international tournament is the European Championships or Euros.
Stress just doesn't seem plausible. It would mean that WC/Euro/Copa/UCL/etc final stage games would be flooded with OGs, even without Covid.
“If you look at each one and how they’ve occurred, many have come from “dangerous areas” on the pitch. At AS Monaco over the last season, we looked at where and how goals were most often scored and key areas to shoot/cross from to apply in our game model.”
With teams applying more analytics to soccer there are more cases of high goal probability crosses and defenders’ attempts to clear these are often futile. A great example was England’s equalizer yesterday that technically was an OG but realistically the defender had no chance to clear it and Sterling was right there to tap it in.