Third goal against QPR was an own goal

, 18 December, 30comments | Jump to most recent

As expected, the Premier League's Dubious Goals Panel has elected to credit Everton's third goal against QPR last Monday as an own goal by Nedum Onuoha.

Steven Naismith's header from Aiden McGeady's cross was heading for the far corner of the goal until Rob Green got a crucial hand to the ball, only for it deflect off Onuoha into the net.

Reader Comments (30)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer

Ian Burns
2 Posted 18/12/2014 at 18:07:21

He gets a new contract then gets his goal taken off him! I suppose the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away!

Gerry Quinn
3 Posted 18/12/2014 at 18:13:34

is the dubious goals panel located in heaven then, Ian? I thought it was in London...

Brent Stephens
4 Posted 18/12/2014 at 19:00:53

Dubious Goals Panel. I assume the "dubious" describes the panel not the goal in this case. A Nais goal for me. And the rest of the TW Dubious Goals Panel?

Rob Halligan
5 Posted 18/12/2014 at 19:03:27

Thought the dubious panel only sat for the likes of Mirallas's goal against QPR? I.e a shot or header that is not on target but goes in off a defender? Naismiths header was on target and was only helped over the line by the defender. Definitely Naismiths goal for me.

Dave Lynch
6 Posted 18/12/2014 at 19:19:22

Does not matter one fucking iota!

It hit the back of the net and if we score another 50 like that this season, I for one will not complain...

John Zapa
7 Posted 18/12/2014 at 19:20:34

Would surprise me if the club lobbied for this, just so they don’t pay him his goal bonus!

Patrick Murphy
8 Posted 18/12/2014 at 19:20:53

But we can't have a free-transfer from Glasgow Rangers being among the leading scorers at the end of the season - I thought that RM's goal would have been more likely to be taken away from him rather than Naisy's. He'll just have to score a couple on Saturday to make up for his loss.

Mark Griffiths
9 Posted 18/12/2014 at 19:22:40

What a load of crap? It was on target!

Scott Bosworth
10 Posted 18/12/2014 at 19:29:38

I assume that the deciding factor here Â– since the header was clearly on target Â– is that it bounced off two opposing defenders instead of just one?

Dave Abrahams
11 Posted 18/12/2014 at 19:58:29

Dave Lynch, I'm with you 100 per cent.

Murdo Laing
12 Posted 18/12/2014 at 20:21:54

I'm waging a tenner that Nessie will slot at St Mary's on Saturday, he is on the move again, and his comeback vs QPR was only the start. I'm also pleased that he's signed his new contract, he is now one of our most consistent and committed performers, and seems the sort of lad who is self aware about how the fans respond to positive effort on the pitch.

Mike Childs
13 Posted 18/12/2014 at 23:01:18

Another poster who favors David Lynch's outlook.

Patrick Murphy
14 Posted 18/12/2014 at 23:06:30

Apparently out of the 18 Own Goals scored in Everton's favour at Goodison in the PL era only 3 have been scored at the Park End, quite a notable difference. Come on Park End do your stuff as they all count, regardless of how they go in.

Harold Matthews
15 Posted 18/12/2014 at 23:34:06

I still loved the cross and the header. Memorable stuff.

Tim Greeley
16 Posted 19/12/2014 at 01:55:13

Goals bro!! I can see this as one of the replay angles pretty clearly showed that Green's save would've sent the ball around the post if not for our QPR conspirators being conveniently situated to help us out.

Just have to score two this weekend Nessi!

Tony Abrahams
17 Posted 19/12/2014 at 07:27:21

I remember Hypia's, Patrick, and the one the other night! Who scored the other one?

Jamie Crowley
18 Posted 19/12/2014 at 07:50:50

The cross and the header were marvelous. That's all that matters. Aside from the fact it spurned on my Blue mate to buy a Proddy - Pope round of shots. Celtic-Rangers connection on the goal and whatnot.

A Bushmills for him and a Jamesons for me.

Got me all warm and fuzzy. Pray it happens 100 times again.

Tony J Williams
19 Posted 19/12/2014 at 12:10:38

Absolutely ridiculous situation, taking goals away from strikers whose shots were clearly on target.

The most ridiculous thing is that Peter Crouch got his first goal for the Shite after about fifteen deflections, yet Naismith, whose shot was clearly on target gets his chalked off.

Also one that always winds me up, Rooney getting given the goal when playing for England when the ball hits the post, rebounds out , hits the goalie and goes in. Clearly the first shot was off target as it hit the post and was coming back out away from goal.

Either way, if a striker shoots and it goes in, he should be credited with that goal anyway. What's the point in taking it away from him? (Apart from the bookies.)

Jamie Barlow
20 Posted 19/12/2014 at 12:26:37

Not that it matters but it wasn't on target. The initial header which was on target was saved by Green who pushed the ball (which was going wide) onto the QPR lads head. Own goal.

Brian Waring
21 Posted 19/12/2014 at 16:07:22

As Jamie said.

Steve Cotton
22 Posted 19/12/2014 at 19:14:15

Last season, a Luis Suarez shot was heading 2 yards wide when it hit a defender and bounced in Â– guess what? they gave him the goal to try and help him get his 30.

The panel that day were Redknapp, Souness and John Barnes... probably.

Jim Bennings
23 Posted 19/12/2014 at 21:23:25

Should they change the name to

"The Obvious Wankers Panel"?

Mike Allison
24 Posted 19/12/2014 at 21:38:54

Naismith's header was saved, so he didn't score.

Barkley's was also an own goal as the original shot was off target.

I don't know why that's anything to be upset about.

Colin Glassar
25 Posted 19/12/2014 at 22:42:06

Is it only Evertonians who not only put a downer on a defeat but put one on a win as well?

We love to moan about other teams when they get jammy goals, pens, decisions etc...but when it happens to us the holier than thou, purer than white brigade are morally horrified that we could celebrate a deflection or an oggie. And heavens forbid we get a dubious penalty decision. That would merit a spiritual cleansing in the Vatican.

James Marshall
26 Posted 20/12/2014 at 10:07:36

Why is it ridiculous? On first watch you could clearly see the keeper saved it, it bounced out, hit Onoua then went in. It wasn't going in from Naismith's header, end of.

Brent Stephens
27 Posted 20/12/2014 at 11:03:47

My take is that Green pushed it away from goal so it would have gone wide from there but then Onoua deflected it in - so OG.

If Green's save had seen the ball still heading for goal, then Onoua's touch would have meant it was Nais's goal.

Joe Green
28 Posted 20/12/2014 at 12:05:19

I'd be more impressed by the Dubious Goals Panel if they investigated Man City's penalty against us last week!

Seriously, what is the point of taking goals away from attacking teams and giving as OGs? I'd be Roberto-like and be positive - award any OG to last attacking player to touch the ball. Why not?

Brent Stephens
29 Posted 20/12/2014 at 12:32:38

Joe #28 - scenario - Stirling has the ball but gives it awy to Jags, who passes to Distin, who passes to Coleman, who passes to Baines... (5 minutes later)... who passes to Howard, who miss-kicks and sees the ball go into the net. Goal to Sterling. I can see it coming.

James Marshall
30 Posted 20/12/2014 at 13:13:38

Joe - dubious goals are also important for betting purposes.

Anthony Hawkins
32 Posted 22/12/2014 at 08:57:15

All three goals in the QPR game were deflected and technically own goals so why just focus on the last one?

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.

About these ads