bickster Posted January 16, 2009 Moderator Share Posted January 16, 2009 you've won the internet, well done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 OK...OK... That's just brillliant and so, so hypocritical it's hilarious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myb Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 The target is to score a goal, if it hits the woodwork and goes in its a goal, its on target, if it rebounds off the woodwork and doesn't go in, its off target. A sort of close but no cigar situation Absolute rubbish IMO, it's off target whatever the circumstance, if it goes in off the post, it's the same as an off-target deflection. Course not!! Your aim is to hit the target (which is the net), and you have succeeded in doing so. The post doesn't move (unlike a goalkeeper) so you know that if you hit the inside of the post it's likely that you'll score. Hits the post and in = on target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 So if you aim on target but it going for the corner flag, hits a defenders arse and goes in the back of the net it's on target? Seriously? Same equates hitting the post, it's mm's if its in or out, hence it's pot luck and it's off target! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myb Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 So if you aim on target but it going for the corner flag, hits a defenders arse and goes in the back of the net it's on target? Seriously? Same equates hitting the post, it's mm's if its in or out, hence it's pot luck and it's off target! No, cause that would be an own goal. If you aim for the inside of the post, hit it and score then your shot is on target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Who aims for the post though, no-one. IMO of course, I don't really want to win the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NormandyVillan Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Strictly speaking there is no "target" when someone shoots. The aim is to cause the ball to pass through a vertical plane formed by the goal line, goalposts and crossbar, but there is no concrete thing you have to hit (not even the net). Pedantry aside, I would say that a shot that hits the post/bar but does not go in is obviously "off target". If it goes in off the post/bar then it is "on target". As regards deflected/saved shots, they are "on target" if they would have gone in if no one had touched them. That all seems quite clear to me. On the other hand, if you have game stats listing "shots on target", "shots off target" and "shots blocked", then there must be some cases that are difficult to categorise. If a shot is cleared off the line by a defender, it presumably goes down as "on target", but what if it's blocked two yards out, four yards out, six yards out... ? At what point does a "shot on target" become a mere "blocked shot"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myb Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Personally, i think people aim for the inside of the post, particularly when bending a shot round the keeper... the closer it is to the corner, the closer you are to scoring! You can't get no closer to the corner than the inside of the post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Personally, i think people aim for the inside of the post, particularly when bending a shot round the keeper... the closer it is to the corner, the closer you are to scoring! You can't get no closer to the corner than the inside of the post. spot on myb. inside of the post and in = about as perfect as you can get, and on target too. you have now won the internet from Mr Rogers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Thank god... the pressure of owning the internet was getting to me... :wink: I still think that it's off target though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 So when John Terry strikes the inside of the post in the CL final last year and it bounces out is that the on target part of the inside of the post or the off target bit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piav_k4 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I went for off target but there's a whole host of scenarios isn't there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelle Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I've had this debate with myself many times. When I can't sleep I have the strangest thoughts in my head. And I'm among the few here. Clearly it mostly should be deemed off target but the debate only has an effect on the stats saying how many shots you had off and on target. And as I think in the positive way that having shots on target is better than off, I consider hitting the post or bar is on target. Can the posts or the bar stop a ball from hitting the net? Of course it can. They are pretty much wider than the net is. Had we had thin sticks instead of those stocky posts a fair few shots going off the post would hit the net. I know, that goal would fall apart even if I hit it, but in my world those sticks are made of titan and will stand up. :nod: But seriously, nothing against the discussion itself but it's kind of meaningless. If it wasn't for the stats no one would care. I still count it as a very good chance to score and the same goes for some wide shots. And those chances are those who counts, IMO. A question to those who clearly says no. Sidwells header against Arsenal, after it bounced off the first Arsenal-players head up into the bar, was that on or off the target? I mean, we'll never know as the ball then hit another players head standing on the goalline. I know, that doesn't happen that often, but it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NormandyVillan Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Speaking of shots on target, does anyone know the record for the lowest number of shots on target in a game? The recent Hull v Villa game must have come pretty close. At the end of the game I could only recall 1 shot on target for us (a rather weak effort by Barry) and none for them. If that is correct, it could only be beaten by a game with no shots on target at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myb Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 you have now won the internet from Mr Rogers. Great, thanks! What perks does winning the internet bring?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted January 16, 2009 VT Supporter Share Posted January 16, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Speaking of shots on target, does anyone know the record for the lowest number of shots on target in a game? The recent Hull v Villa game must have come pretty close. At the end of the game I could only recall 1 shot on target for us (a rather weak effort by Barry) and none for them. If that is correct, it could only be beaten by a game with no shots on target at all. Not quite what you were asking but there was a stat on Talksport a while back where a team (think it was Man Utd) won a game without having a single shot on goal, the goal was obviously an Og. EDIT - Thinking about it they might have said there were no shots on target and the goal was scored in off the post ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 If a shot is blasted high over the crossbar (see Stylian Petrov), that is off target. If a shot slams against the goalpost, it is ON target, in fact, it's hit the target. And sometimes the ball will ricochet into the net....so yeah, on target for me. Plus, if you've ever hit the post yourself, it is a satisfying feeling, even though you havent scored Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Just a stats post to attemp to clarify matters. according to some, who think that "post and in" is not a shot on target, it must therefore be possible to win a game 1-0, without having a shot on target, or through an own goal or deflected goal? Surely that is impossible? How did the ball get into the back of the net? in official match stats, post and in as not counted as deflected or "own goal". Have you ever seen "post" or "bar" credited with a goal? So, as it's not an own goal, how did the goal come about? It must have gone in without intervention. Hence a shot on target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 If a shot is blasted high over the crossbar (see Stylian Petrov), that is off target. If a shot slams against the goalpost, it is ON target, in fact, it's hit the target. And sometimes the ball will ricochet into the net....so yeah, on target for me. Plus, if you've ever hit the post yourself, it is a satisfying feeling, even though you havent scored so you think the target is the posts/bar, rather than the back of the net? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts