Assist in the Stoke vs Crystal Palace match

Post by **Football Hero** » 05 May 2018, 16:18

The winner for Van Aanholt looked like a clear diversion into his path by Shawcross. Will this assist be taken away?

Post by **Pulpy** » 05 May 2018, 16:33

Try reporting it.

Post by **Aldershot Rejects** » 05 May 2018, 17:17

Please leave it as it is, Zaha is currently my only player to score more than 2 pts

Post by **FranckKessie** » 05 May 2018, 18:59

Ridiculous, but I think the assist will stand. It was the intention of Zaha to pass PvA, so even though Shawcross touch alters the direction significantly this does not matter.

Post by **bigcliff2** » 05 May 2018, 20:18

I think that's absolutely crazy to give the assist there. Sure he was trying to pass it to him but it was a huge touch that completely changed the direction of the ball.

Post by **FranckKessie** » 05 May 2018, 20:26

bigcliff2 wrote: ↑05 May 2018, 20:18 I think that's absolutely crazy to give the assist there. Sure he was trying to pass it to him but it was a huge touch that completely changed the direction of the ball.

Agree, but none the less won't change the outcome. At least there was a chance for PvA to possibly score (though unlikely he would have) had Shawcross not touched the ball. That couldn't be said on the De Bruyne assist (Aguero scoring) earlier in the season. Their definition of "intended destination" needs a review imo.

Post by **bigcliff2** » 05 May 2018, 20:31

Yes, it says:

"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."

I guess it's arguable under that definition but it's certainly not common sense to give an assist in this case. For me, the intended destination was significantly altered there.

Post by **dellboy30** » 05 May 2018, 20:49

I started zaha over shaqiri, I'll take it, but would agree its a flawed rule

Post by **hancockjr** » 05 May 2018, 21:20

No - the whole point is that he intended it to go to PVA and it did. Shawcross affected the direction of the ball but not the destination. The assist is completely valid under the rules and also “morally”, for want of a better word.

Post by **murf** » 05 May 2018, 21:33

hancockjr wrote:No - the whole point is that he intended it to go to PVA and it did. Shawcross affected the direction of the ball but not the destination. The assist is completely valid under the rules and also “morally”, for want of a better word.

Do they mean intended person or intended position by 'destination'? Bit odd that it is so poorly defined when OPTA are (perceived as?) massive stats geeks.

(Incidentally TFF have tweaked their KC ruke this season to refer to 'intended area' but often forget they've changed it. So Zaha shouldn't get a KC. But probably will...)

Post by **hancockjr** » 05 May 2018, 21:37

The whole reason for saying destination rather than direction is for this sort of thing - where the direction was changed but the destination (PVA in on goal) still happened.

If it’s not a Telegraph KC their rules are inferior.

Post by **Sutter Kane** » 05 May 2018, 21:50

If a pass is bad and doesn't reach its destination without a massive deflection then I'm not sure Zaha deserves an assist! But them's the rules...

Post by **hancockjr** » 05 May 2018, 21:53

Not given as telegraph KC.

Post by **Klaren** » 05 May 2018, 22:15

The ball reached its destination even if not at the exact intended position, so in my opinion it should be an assist. If they didn't award an assist in situations like this, where the ball reaches the intended destination (PVA) but not the intended position, then there would be a significant amount of subjectivity involved. So I think the rule makes sense.

Post by **Isalla** » 06 May 2018, 01:09

“Significant deflection”. Wouldn’t every situation “shot on goal - keeper saves - another player gets a tap in” fall under this category as well? Yet, the assist is given to the initial shooter.

Post by **reds363** » 06 May 2018, 02:24

Isalla wrote: ↑06 May 2018, 01:09 “Significant deflection”. Wouldn’t every situation “shot on goal - keeper saves - another player gets a tap in” fall under this category as well? Yet, the assist is given to the initial shooter.

Because there's a specific rule for shots saved which rebound to a goal

Crosses or passes significantly deflected will not get an assist, so it's a pretty shocking decision that this one has stood, although thankfully in this DGW he must have like 0.01% ownership amongst relevant teams.

Post by **Football Hero** » 06 May 2018, 12:02

I personally much preferred the old rule that was in place for a couple of seasons whereby as long as the significant deflection occurred inside the box, whether it be for a cross or shot, then the assist was given, but any significant deflection that occurred outside the box was not given.

It meant that more assists were awarded than there are currently, (which is a good thing as it's hard enough for players to score points as it is), and at the same time it was very black and white for what counted and what did not.

FISO