Karl`s PC Help Forums

Morality in football?
Katzy - 9-8-2015 at 11:06


Good on them, too!

marymary100 - 9-8-2015 at 11:25

Mmm - what did the fans think though?

Katzy - 9-8-2015 at 20:54

Doncaster fans? Think? Bury fans? Think? :D

marymary100 - 9-8-2015 at 21:53



LSemmens - 10-8-2015 at 03:49

What happened? The article did not elaborate?

Katzy - 10-8-2015 at 09:52

An Oz reporter does a good job of it.


LSemmens - 10-8-2015 at 12:30

Thanks Katzy. Maybe I'm missing something here, but, why would the umpire have allowed the own goal as, surely, it occurred during stoppage when the team was awarded a free pass.

Katzy - 10-8-2015 at 17:08

The acknowledged thing to do, is give the ball to the opposition, in those circumstances. But, his pass to the opposition goalkeeper was so bad, that it went into the net, scoring a goal.

But, it's not a rule of the game and the ref had no option but to award the goal. So, they let them score one back.

scholar - 11-8-2015 at 00:14

Ah, now it makes more sense.kewl_glasses

LSemmens - 11-8-2015 at 04:16

If he were passing to the opposition goalkeeper then, surely it would have been a normal goal given that the opposing goalkeeper does not defend their own goals. I understand the sportsmanship in what happened but I'm still trying to come to grips with how the situation occurred in the first place.


Team A has the ball in front of the opposing goal, then team A's goal keeper would be there, not the opposing one. If he were passing to his own goalie, and it went wrong, I can understand it.

Katzy - 11-8-2015 at 10:29

Usual scenario:

A guy playing for City (Any city team) gets injured and it looks serious. United (any Utd.) have possession, at the time, but kick the ball out of play, deliberately, so that the City guy can get immediate treatment.

That, of course, would mean that the City have the right to put the ball back into play, as a Utd. player kicked it out. That, obviously, would put City at an advantage, since Utd. had possession and gave it up, freely, so the City player could get treatment. Since it would be unfair, morally, for the team that helped the guy to get treatment to get possession, City would give the ball back to the Utd. So that, basically, things were as they were, before the player got injured and Utd. have possession.

Usually, the city player would either throw the ball straight back to a Utd. player, or throw the ball to their own player, who would kick it back to the opposition's keeper. That guy chose the latter option and fluffed it. :D

LSemmens - 12-8-2015 at 00:30

That, to me, is logical and fair. I may well have needed to see the incident unfold to work out how, by kicking a ball to your opposing goalie, that an "own goal" is scored.

Katzy - 12-8-2015 at 10:23

I think the term was used metaphorically.

As in "Fukkup". ;)