Finally a soccer game that sounds interesting

[Tuberski]

http://www.snopes.com/sports/soccer/barbados.htm

Claim: Football team wins match by scoring against itself.
Status: True.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2000]


Forget England-Argentina/Germany/Portugal and all the rest and listen to this one.
It concerns a match played between Barbados and Grenada in cup competition.

Barbados needed to win the game by two clear goals in order to progress to the next round. Now the trouble was caused by a daft rule in the competition which stated that in the event of a game going to penalty kicks, the winner of the penalty kicks would be awarded a 2-0 victory.

With 5 minutes to go, Barbados were leading 2-1, and going out of the tournament (because they needed to win by 2 clear goals). Then, when they realized they were probably not going to score against Grenada's massed defence, they turned round, and deliberately scored on their own goal to level the scores and take the game into penalties. Grenada, themselves not being stupid, realized what was going on, and then attempted to score an own goal themselves. However, the Barbados players started defending their opponents goal to prevent this.

In the last five minutes, spectators were treated to the incredible sight of both team's defending their opponents goal against attackers desperately trying to score an own goal and goalkeepers trying to throw the ball into their own net. The game went to penalties, which Barbados won and so were awarded a 2-0 victory and progressed to the next round.




Origins: This anecdote is largely true as reported above, save for a few minor discrepancies.

The incident took place during a final group match between Barbados and Grenada for the Shell Caribbean Cup in February 1994. The Barbados team had to win the match by at least two goals in order to face Trinidad and Tobago in the finals; anything less and Grenada advanced to the next round instead. The rules in effect at the time specified that if the score were tied at the end of regulation play, the match would continue into sudden-death overtime (not a penalty kicks round, as stated above), and the first team to score during the overtime period would be considered a two-goal winner.

As detailed above, Barbados was leading 2-0 well into the second half of play, when Grenada finally managed to score a goal in the 83rd minute to make the score 2-1. Barbados realized with three minutes to play that they were unlikely to score again in the time remaining and deliberately kicked the ball into their own goal to tie the match at 2-2 and force an overtime period. Grenada then attempted to score on their own goal to prevent the match from going into overtime, but Barbados had already started defending Grenada's goal to prevent them from succeeding. The two teams then spent the remaining few minutes with Barbados defending both ends of the field as Grenada tried to put the ball into either goal, but time expired with the score still tied. Four minutes into overtime play, Barbados scored and advanced to the finals.

This would have been fun to watch!




ACK!

[Mr. President]

An Indonesian defender, Mursyid Effendi, got banned for life for deliberately scoring an own goal at, I think it was the 1998 Tiger Cup.

It was also in the last group game, and if his team had won, they would have played the hosts Vietnam in front of a vicious crowd in Hanoi, which they wanted to avoid. It didn't help - they played Thailand instead, and lost.

Did Barbados get in trouble for this silliness?

[H Tower]

If it's all in the rules, i don't see why they would have got in trouble. It's all about playing within the rules.

Except barbados should have waited until the last minute to score the own goal, then grenada wouldn't have had a chance to figure out what was going on

[Laertes]

If Grenada were trying to score an own goal, with Barbados trying to defend the Greanada goal, it would be pretty easy for Greanda to catch the Barbados players offside. They could then force the Barbados players back ten yards, and score an own goal from the indirect free kick.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Fergus Horkan
If Grenada were trying to score an own goal, with Barbados trying to defend the Greanada goal, it would be pretty easy for Greanda to catch the Barbados players offside.

Only if the Barbados players passed the ball toward the Grenadian goal (ie. backwards in this instance, but forwards according to the rules). Which they would be unlikely to do, given the circumstances.
In many ways they would have played the game as normal, since the Barbados strikers would go in their own penalty area and the defenders would to the opposition area. Likewise the Grenada team. There's nothing to stop the two goalie's from changing ends either. A VERY weird situation.

[VJ]

Imagine that there are two goalies in one goal, one (which was from the opposite side) trying to defend, the other goalie trying to make an own goal.

Interesting situation, isn't it?

[Winston]

Bruce Grobelaar tried this visionary approach years ago.

Didn't work.

[Laertes]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet


Only if the Barbados players passed the ball toward the Grenadian goal (ie. backwards in this instance, but forwards according to the rules). Which they would be unlikely to do, given the circumstances.

The Barbados players would be offside if they come between the Grenada payers and the Grenada goal. A barbados player would be offside as soon as he touched the ball if there were no Grenada player closer to the Grenada goal line. So if all the grenada players come out to their 18 yard box and rolled the ball towards their net, a Barbados player stopping the ball would be offside.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Fergus Horkan
So if all the grenada players come out to their 18 yard box and rolled the ball towards their net, a Barbados player stopping the ball would be offside.

Nope, they wouldn't.
In order for you to be offside the ball has to travel forwards (ie. towards the end of the pitch where the opposition's goal is) as a result of contact with a member of your own team (accidental or deliberate) when there are less than 2 players between you and the opposition's goal line.

Simple, ain't it?

[loinburger]

I always thought that offsides only takes effect if the ball is actually passed to the person who's offsides, or if the person who's offsides is distracting the defenders in some way. If the Barbados players were keeping the ball near the center line (as they ought to) then there'd be no reason to call offsides since the ball wouldn't be passed to the players defending the other team's goal.

[FrustratedPoet]

addition to my previous post: It is also impossible for you to be offside (under any circumstances) if you're standing in your own half.

I always thought that offsides only takes effect if the ball is actually passed to the person who's offsides, or if the person who's offsides is distracting the defenders in some way.

That's essentially correct. However, the interpretation of exactly when a player is "active" or "inactive" for the purposes of this rule is more than a little murky. The bizarre situation of this particular game doesn't help make it any clearer.

[FrustratedPoet]

/me gets all nerdy and pedantic.

Loin: FYI, the term is simply "offside" not "offsides".

[Laertes]

If the Barbados players are trying to stop the Grenada players from scoring an own goal, then they are in the Grenada goalmouth defending the OPPOSITION goal.

So, if all the Grenada players are on the edge of their own penalty area, and try to put the ball into THEIR OWN NET, the first Barbados player to touch it is OK, but every other Barbados player in the goalmouth is offside because:
- they are interfering with play,
- there are no Grenadans between them and the opposition goal.

????

[FrustratedPoet]

The problem with that Fergus, is that the ball would have been given to them by a Grenada player. In order for it to be offside the ball needs to pass from Barbados player to another.

I think the rules take the view that if a player is so stupid to pass it to the opposition then it shouldn't matter where the said opposition player is standing.

In your example the first Barbados player to touch the ball could simply hammer the ball towards the half-way line.

[Laertes]

You're right. But if there is only one Barbados player it is going to be pretty easy to score, and if there is more than one, all the others are offside as soon as the first Barbados player touches it, unless they are behind him (closer to their own goal). So the Grenada players can just make sure it touches the right player, then "offside!"

[Imran Siddiqui]

But if there is only one Barbados player it is going to be pretty easy to score, and if there is more than one, all the others are offside as soon as the first Barbados player touches it, unless they are behind him (closer to their own goal).

Not necessarily. They don't have to be closer to their own goal because they aren't involved in the play. You can be right next to the goalie if you want, but if no pass comes to you at all, then you ain't offside. You aren't involved in the play.

[FrustratedPoet]

all the others are offside as soon as the first Barbados player touches it, unless they are behind him

Fergus: I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
Let's imagine that there are 5 Barbados players right around the Grenada goal, trying to stop the Grenadans from scoring an own-goal. No Grenada players are closer to the goal-line than the 5 Barbados players. A Grenada player shoots the ball towards his own goal. A Barbados player (it makes no difference which one) blocks it, gets it under control and bashes the ball up to the half-way line to clear it.
There is no offside in that instance. As long as the Barbados player who blocks the ball does not kick it to one of his team-mates in the direction of the Grenada goal then it is a perfectly legal play. Whether his team-mates are in front of him or behind him makes no difference.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Winston
Bruce Grobelaar tried this visionary approach years ago.

Didn't work.

Yeah, fancy only winning 2 European Cups and a hat full of League titles, a p!ss poor career by anyones standards!

[Laertes]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet

Quote:

all the others are offside as soon as the first Barbados player touches it, unless they are behind him

Fergus: I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
Let's imagine that there are 5 Barbados players right around the Grenada goal, trying to stop the Grenadans from scoring an own-goal. No Grenada players are closer to the goal-line than the 5 Barbados players. A Grenada player shoots the ball towards his own goal. A Barbados player (it makes no difference which one) blocks it, gets it under control and bashes the ball up to the half-way line to clear it.
There is no offside in that instance. As long as the Barbados player who blocks the ball does not kick it to one of his team-mates in the direction of the Grenada goal then it is a perfectly legal play. Whether his team-mates are in front of him or behind him makes no difference.

Maybe I dont, but as I understand the rule, you are offside when you are interfering with play, regarless of whether you have the ball or not. A Barbados player on the Grenada goal-line helping to block a shot must be interfering with play.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
However, the interpretation of exactly when a player is "active" or "inactive" for the purposes of this rule is more than a little murky. The bizarre situation of this particular game doesn't help make it any clearer.

I'm of the view "If you're not interfering with play then what are you doing on the pitch?".

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Fergus Horkan
A Barbados player on the Grenada goal-line helping to block a shot must be interfering with play.

Not if it's a Grenada player who's taken the shot. But anyway .... I think this conversation is going round in cricles. It's all pretty damn confusing whichever way you look at it.

[alva]

Is there any video material to be found from this game?
-
FP; never go down that slippery road of trying to explain the off-side rule, especially the finer points. It's just one of those things you need to be grown up with

[Imran Siddiqui]

A Barbados player on the Grenada goal-line helping to block a shot must be interfering with play.

Not really. You have to be actively involved with the play. The ball has to be sent towards you or you have to go after a loose ball that was kicked (poorly) by your own guy. A Barbados player on the Grenada goal-line who hasn't touched the ball isn't active.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
A Barbados player on the Grenada goal-line who hasn't touched the ball isn't active.

The important consideration is if his presence in an offside position has directly advantaged his team - he needn't necessarily have touched the ball in order for this to be the case. Being a distraction to the opposition goalie or defenders is usually enough to have you declared offside. However, if you're lying injured near the corner flag only the most cold-hearted officials would call you offside. Like I said, it's all very much open to the interpretation of each individual case.



How about we start discussing the LBW rule in cricket?

[Laertes]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet



How about we start discussing the LBW rule in cricket?

Good idea, I know even less about that.