Hendrick goal
-
- Posts: 1867
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 1:33 pm
- Been Liked: 383 times
- Has Liked: 234 times
- Location: Skipton
Hendrick goal
Why hasn't Jeff been credited with the first goal against Fulham? His shot was on target before it was deflected.
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Hendrick goal
Going in the top corner according to MOTD. I didn't mention it as there were about 17 threads about us winning without a shot on target. So I guess the question to be asked is, should that be included in the shots on target?
-
- Posts: 1867
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 1:33 pm
- Been Liked: 383 times
- Has Liked: 234 times
- Location: Skipton
Re: Hendrick goal
Yes, and if it was a shot on target the person that led to a deflected goal, it's Jeffs!
-
- Posts: 21464
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:59 pm
- Been Liked: 8585 times
- Has Liked: 11285 times
Re: Hendrick goal
Probably because its more of a story for the media if we won with 2 own goals and no shots on target. I genuinely think that. No other reason why thats an own goal and shane longs isnt. Again Longs was a story because his last four goals have been under four different manager.
Its ******** if thats not Hendricks goal.
Its ******** if thats not Hendricks goal.
These 2 users liked this post: bob-the-scutter Dazzler
-
- Posts: 592
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:12 pm
- Been Liked: 141 times
- Has Liked: 81 times
Re: Hendrick goal
Think it was going post and in and the post isn’t classed as on target.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Hendrick goal
Hard to tell where it was going before Sessegnon deflected it. Conspiracy theorists can sit down; it was the first of the two (so unless "the media" knew there'd be another...) and didn't our ground announcer say it was an o g.?
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Hendrick goal
It isn't. MOTD showed exactly where it was going, using technology. I think that's the point of the thread. We know where it was going.thatdberight wrote:Hard to tell where it was going before Sessegnon deflected it.
Re: Hendrick goal
Aye cos i’m sure our announcer had a perfect view from
120 yards through driving rain
It was on target according to the angle showed on MOTD. They all agreed it was going in....not sure why it has not been credited to Hendrick unless they had a different angle none of us have seen.
120 yards through driving rain
It was on target according to the angle showed on MOTD. They all agreed it was going in....not sure why it has not been credited to Hendrick unless they had a different angle none of us have seen.
This user liked this post: FactualFrank
-
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:19 am
- Been Liked: 409 times
- Has Liked: 3421 times
- Location: Crawley West Sussex
Re: Hendrick goal
I am surprised Kane hasnt claimed it.
These 9 users liked this post: cricketfieldclarets Narwhalchomper DomBFC1882 Siddo Shore claret HunterST_BFC jtv Braindead Foulthrow
Re: Hendrick goal
Sessegnon? It was Bryan lolthatdberight wrote:Hard to tell where it was going before Sessegnon deflected it. Conspiracy theorists can sit down; it was the first of the two (so unless "the media" knew there'd be another...) and didn't our ground announcer say it was an o g.?
-
- Posts: 21464
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:59 pm
- Been Liked: 8585 times
- Has Liked: 11285 times
Re: Hendrick goal
No but and in is!wickdkewlclaret wrote:Think it was going post and in and the post isn’t classed as on target.
-
- Posts: 21464
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:59 pm
- Been Liked: 8585 times
- Has Liked: 11285 times
Re: Hendrick goal
turfytopper wrote:I am surprised Kane hasnt claimed it.
Re: Hendrick goal
The goal that Long scored for Southampton against Leicester was never going in until Schmeichel palmed it into his own net I can't believe it hasn't been put down as an own goal
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Hendrick goal
Then they must have been on crack. I'll catch it on catch up and see what they thought - I haven't seen their analysis.FactualFrank wrote:Going in the top corner according to MOTD.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Hendrick goal
Doesn't it come off the sole of Sessegnon's boot first, just after Jeff hits it? If not, I take it back, it's possible to say where it would have ended up and I think it's on the post / just inside the post - probably the latter given the spin which I assumed was from the first, small deflection as I didn't see how Jeff's contact imparted it.Bosscat wrote:Sessegnon? It was Bryan lol
Last edited by thatdberight on Mon Jan 14, 2019 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Hendrick goal
Easy mistake to mix them up to be fair !Bosscat wrote:Sessegnon? It was Bryan lol
-
- Posts: 18063
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
- Been Liked: 3862 times
- Has Liked: 2071 times
Re: Hendrick goal
I thought it was going slightly wide. Not convinced by people saying it was swerving in. If Jeff wants the goal he might have to pay for Hawk eye to prove it was going in.
-
- Posts: 7383
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 7:39 pm
- Been Liked: 2235 times
- Has Liked: 2139 times
Re: Hendrick goal
Conspiracy theorists would have said that there was another shooter!thatdberight wrote:Hard to tell where it was going before Sessegnon deflected it. Conspiracy theorists can sit down; it was the first of the two (so unless "the media" knew there'd be another...) and didn't our ground announcer say it was an o g.?
This user liked this post: thatdberight
-
- Posts: 543
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:49 am
- Been Liked: 151 times
- Has Liked: 693 times
Re: Hendrick goal
The dubious goals panel seem quick enough to take goals off players so why are they not as quick to credit JH with what appears to be his goal.
NO ONE LIKES US !!!!!
NO ONE LIKES US !!!!!
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Hendrick goal
Bosscat wrote:Sessegnon? It was Bryan lol
I could well be wrong but at least I have some company if so:TVC15 wrote:Easy mistake to mix them up to be fair !
https://www.skysports.com/football/burn ... ham/390968" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"A driven cross from Jeff Hendrick ricocheted off Ryan Sessegnon before deflecting off the unfortunate Bryan"
-
- Posts: 3613
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:03 pm
- Been Liked: 891 times
- Has Liked: 1100 times
- Location: Solihull Geriatric Centre
Re: Hendrick goal
Clarets Player has the goal cam which seems to show the shot was not going in but that Tarky would have been ideally placed to tap it in if it had not been deflected
-
- Posts: 21464
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:59 pm
- Been Liked: 8585 times
- Has Liked: 11285 times
Re: Hendrick goal
Like Cairney and CisseTVC15 wrote:Easy mistake to mix them up to be fair !
-
- Posts: 1867
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 1:33 pm
- Been Liked: 383 times
- Has Liked: 234 times
- Location: Skipton
Re: Hendrick goal
Thanks for all your contributions.
I know it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things (Whatever that means) but I still feel that it was Jeff's goal.
I know it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things (Whatever that means) but I still feel that it was Jeff's goal.
This user liked this post: FactualFrank
Re: Hendrick goal
Nah,he'd have blazed it over the barbfcmik wrote:Tarky would have been ideally placed to tap it in if it had not been deflected
-
- Posts: 990
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 3:54 pm
- Been Liked: 294 times
- Has Liked: 30 times
Re: Hendrick goal
Give over. One of top scorers this seasonDazzler wrote:Nah,he'd have blazed it over the bar
-
- Posts: 8050
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 2:38 pm
- Been Liked: 2416 times
- Has Liked: 2115 times
Re: Hendrick goal
Slightly off topic but what brought about Jeff's "purple patch" on Saturday?
For 20-30 minutes in the first half, he could hardly put a foot wrong.
Was the Fulham defence that bad? Did his team-mates make space for him? or Did Jeff just seize the game by the throat?
For 20-30 minutes in the first half, he could hardly put a foot wrong.
Was the Fulham defence that bad? Did his team-mates make space for him? or Did Jeff just seize the game by the throat?
-
- Posts: 5724
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:13 am
- Been Liked: 2829 times
- Has Liked: 141 times
Re: Hendrick goal
Firstly, he's a good player. A couple of things worked out well for him early on and he looked to get confidence from it.RalphCoatesComb wrote:Slightly off topic but what brought about Jeff's "purple patch" on Saturday?
For 20-30 minutes in the first half, he could hardly put a foot wrong.
Was the Fulham defence that bad? Did his team-mates make space for him? or Did Jeff just seize the game by the throat?
Secondly, I really think the role he played on Saturday suited him. He's at his best driving onto the ball from deeper - and both goals in their own way were examples of this. When he's played as our most advanced of a midfield 3, he's not always had chance to do that because he's had his back to goal more than suits him, and when he's playing in the middle of a 2 he's a bit more constrained by the need to keep shape. But our wide midfielders have always had licence to come inside and drive through the middle and that seemed to unshackle him a bit on Saturday.
The final ingredient was that Fulham were woeful and offered up space both on the outside of the centre backs and between the lines, but even allowing for that I think he's given Dyche a real option in that wide role as a sort of "Arfield plus" option, and with that and the emergence of McNeil, I wonder if a wide player is still Dyche's main priority in the window.
These 2 users liked this post: RalphCoatesComb Ashingtonclaret46
-
- Posts: 5045
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:53 am
- Been Liked: 1475 times
- Has Liked: 634 times
Re: Hendrick goal
Do we have a grassy knoll in t'Turf?CoolClaret wrote:Conspiracy theorists would have said that there was another shooter!
-
- Posts: 5548
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:40 pm
- Been Liked: 1447 times
- Has Liked: 1229 times
- Location: Ferkham Hall
Re: Hendrick goal
I’ve shouted for him to be tried on the right many a time on here. He’s played there successfully for Ireland. He mentioned it himself after the game. I was pleased to see he wasn’t chalk on heels though. Some of his runs down the middle were excellent, including the build up to the winner.RalphCoatesComb wrote:Slightly off topic but what brought about Jeff's "purple patch" on Saturday?
For 20-30 minutes in the first half, he could hardly put a foot wrong.
Was the Fulham defence that bad? Did his team-mates make space for him? or Did Jeff just seize the game by the throat?
These 2 users liked this post: RalphCoatesComb Ashingtonclaret46
-
- Posts: 7065
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
- Been Liked: 2238 times
- Has Liked: 1617 times
- Location: Baxenden
Re: Hendrick goal
Sorry mate but if it goes in (without being touched by another player) logic says it's on target. How can it be anything else.wickdkewlclaret wrote:Think it was going post and in and the post isn’t classed as on target.
Re: Hendrick goal
Strange how goals are awarded.
Shane Long's shot/cross was going wide until Schmeichel palms it in.
Harry Kane lies through his teeth ( trying to get the golden boot) and they award a goal to him when he was nowhere near touching it.
Jeff Hendrick has a shot on goal, but isn't allowed to claim it!
Shane Long's shot/cross was going wide until Schmeichel palms it in.
Harry Kane lies through his teeth ( trying to get the golden boot) and they award a goal to him when he was nowhere near touching it.
Jeff Hendrick has a shot on goal, but isn't allowed to claim it!
-
- Posts: 1256
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:23 am
- Been Liked: 495 times
- Has Liked: 219 times
Re: Hendrick goal
It clearly should be Hendrick’s goal, but he has fallen foul to Sky thirst for a different news item.
1. A win without a shot on target.
2. Two own goals.
Much more interesting for Sky’s constant spouting of statistics and more fodder for their ‘experts’ to analyse.
Sorry Jeff - you’ll have to do better than that !!
1. A win without a shot on target.
2. Two own goals.
Much more interesting for Sky’s constant spouting of statistics and more fodder for their ‘experts’ to analyse.
Sorry Jeff - you’ll have to do better than that !!
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Hendrick goal
If it hits the post and goes in, it's on target. If it hits the underside of the crossbar and goes in, it's on target. So basically, it depends on what part of the post/crossbar it hits. If it's at an angle that would take the ball into the goal, it's on target. But regardless, it was missing the post and going directly into the top corner.wickdkewlclaret wrote:Think it was going post and in and the post isn’t classed as on target.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Hendrick goal
How on earth would that shot ever go in the top corner?FactualFrank wrote:If it hits the post and goes in, it's on target. If it hits the underside of the crossbar and goes in, it's on target. So basically, it depends on what part of the post/crossbar it hits. If it's at an angle that would take the ball into the goal, it's on target. But regardless, it was missing the post and going directly into the top corner.
-
- Posts: 17108
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:12 pm
- Been Liked: 4384 times
- Has Liked: 15117 times
Re: Hendrick goal
If the goals were maybe a foot high?
-
- Posts: 21464
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:59 pm
- Been Liked: 8585 times
- Has Liked: 11285 times
Re: Hendrick goal
spot onIWOODLOVETT wrote:It clearly should be Hendrick’s goal, but he has fallen foul to Sky thirst for a different news item.
1. A win without a shot on target.
2. Two own goals.
Much more interesting for Sky’s constant spouting of statistics and more fodder for their ‘experts’ to analyse.
Sorry Jeff - you’ll have to do better than that !!
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Hendrick goal
Only going off what MOTD showed. It would have to be on Earth thoughthatdberight wrote:How on earth would that shot ever go in the top corner?
-
- Posts: 6699
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:23 am
- Been Liked: 1817 times
- Has Liked: 1796 times
- Location: Yarkshire
Re: Hendrick goal
You've just followed their extrapolated arrow to the nth degree.
A bit of common shows it heading for side netting just inside the post, somewhere near ground level.
A bit of common shows it heading for side netting just inside the post, somewhere near ground level.