It's 100% clear that Lennon was not the intended recipient. He wasn't even in the penalty area when Coleman crossed it into the box. He was aiming for Kone, the defender got to the ball first and blocked it sending the ball in a completely different direction towards Lennon who then scored.Stemania wrote:I think we should really change our interpretation a bit on the back of these decisions. We've been kindof assuming that any big enough deflection and it's no assist. But the rule actually implies that the size of defection doesn't matter if the ball still reaches it's intended destination. "If an opposing player touches the ball after the final pass before a goal is scored, significantly altering the intended destination of the ball, then no assist is awarded" is the formulation. Presumably they simply decided that Lennon was the intended recipient, but I must admit I can't now remember the goal. It is worth noting though, that last weeks assist is an assist by this new (possibly correct) interpretation, the frustration is that they maybe haven't seemed to stick by this interpretation in the past.gooberman wrote:Yet again like last week with Sturridge, another assist awarded which is contrary to the definition of assists in their rules. Coleman crosses, defender blocks it and significantly alters the direction of the ball before Lennon scores. I've lost count of the number of times this has happened this season. It's a disgrace.moonlightdribbler wrote:nufctoon wrote:Lennon (Coleman)
Will Coleman get awarded that? I can never keep up with what qualifies an assist when a cross goes into the box, but it was a cross that failed to reach it's intended target, and Lennon finished the rebound.
What I do find ridiculous though, is things like the fact that Clyne's assist yesterday counts because he was having a shot - even though it was deflected hugely, went through a crowd of people, under another attackers foot and eventually fell to the goalscorer. Whether the shot was on or off target, wildly ambitious or even foolish is irrelivant; the rule only cares about intention. Whereas, if a player plays a perfect cross into the box and it gets deflected to a player different to it's intended recipient who then scores, then it's no assist. The odd thing then is, an assist is also awarded for a pass that provides an assist, whether or not the pass was intentional, so if there is no deflection intention means nothing.
I guess their problem is, it's surely fair to award an assist for a blocked shot in many circumstances, and to an accidental pass leading to a goal, but it's impossible to set a reasonable objective rule without encountering ridiculous uncommon situations like the one above.
There was a very similar example in the Man City Newcastle game. Dzeko tried to find Silva in the box, a defender blocked his cross which then changed the direction of the ball resulting in Nasri scoring. Nasri was not the intended recipient and the change in direction of the ball was significant. Again, not a Dzeko assist according to the rules but they still gave the assist to Dzeko. It's an absolute joke.