Soccer geeks, I have a question...

My favorite statkeeper called in tonight... his team won 10-0.
His keepers faced no shots on goal, yet one girl made a save.
His team had 44 shots on goal and the other keeper made 17 saves.
In his world, a keeper can be credited with a save without it going on goal.

The NCAA says:
10.3 Shots
A shot is an attempt that is taken with the intent of scoring and is directed
toward the goal.

Note: A cross is not a shot. A cross is a long kick from a wide position into the penalty area in front of the goal. The intent of a cross is to set up a scoring opportunity for an attacking player. A goalkeeper who intercepts a cross is not credited with a save. To receive a save, the goalkeeper must have stopped a ball that otherwise would have gone into the goal. (see Rule 10.6.1)
Each shot results in one of five possibilities: a goal, a save, it hits the post,
it is blocked by a defender, or it is high or wide.


Ummm, I'm not a math kind of guy, but that ain't right. And everything I see online backs me up. So I'm I just missing this or is he wrong?

 

This is what I consider written in stone. Just because a keeper touches the ball, it's not a save. They have to prevent it from having a reasonable chance of going in.

 

There is a difference between shots on goal and total shots.

A shot on goal = either a save or a point. The total points scored + the total saves should = shots on goal.

But total shots are shots taken by the attacking team toward the goal, but are not saved by the keeper, i.e., shots over the net, wide left or wide right.

 

Bad stat keeping and horrible terminology by the statkeeper. He needs to just keep shots and forget the "on goal" crap. When he said his team had 44 shots on goal, 10 goals and 17 saves, he's full of crap. They had 44 shots. 10 went in and 17 were saved. The other 17 likely went wide, thus weren't on goal.

As for the keeper getting a save with no shot, can you get a save for preventing an own goal? Only way I could see it happening, though not likely to have happened.

 

In my experience with soccer, you have shots and shots on goal as two distinct things.

A shot is anything that was intended to be an attempt at the goal, both things that were actually on frame and things that were intended to be on frame but missed. Crosses don't count because those were meant as passes, but a bomb from 40 that goes over the crossbar without being touched counts.

A shot on goal is something that would have gone in barring a save by the goalkeeper or defender (which is credited as a team save). Shots on goal - saves (goalie + team) = goals.

You cannot make a save without a shot in my experience. An own-goal type scenario, if saved, would be a team shot against for the other team I think.

 

These guys have laid it out correctly, but a defender passing back...no matter how far...would just be the keeper scooping up the ball. Nothing on the stat sheet. If the referee rules it a back pass that the keeper picks up with his or her hands then it would be an indirect free kick, but still not a shot.

Also, for further clarification shots on goal are included in shots. If I kick it goalwards seven times and the goalie has to save four of them and three go wide then I have four shots on goal and seven shots.

 

JP - For the own goal scenario, I'm not thinking a back pass but more very poorly aimed deflection or clearing attempt. For instance, on a corner kick, if a defender gets his head on the ball but accidentally puts it towards the upper corner and the goalie has to pluck it out of the air to keep it from going in, it's clearly not a back pass, and it would have gone in without the goalie saving it, but the guy taking the corner wasn't shooting (most of the time, at least). That's where I could see a team shot on goal and the keeper credited with a save.

Usually, though, I've seen them just give the shot to the original offensive player in that scenario under the assumption it was on goal to begin with, which is technically incorrect but a lot easier to deal with stats-wise.

 

Talked to a soccer coach tonight -- guy is a big muck with the state soccer association.
Where the soccer guys differ from hockey is stops by the defense. Hockey guys don't count a defensive stop as a shot on goal, even if if it was an otherwise empty net. Soccer guys apparently do -- or that's the argument for counting them.

Still, he laughed when I told him the opposing team had no shots on goal, but the stat guy credited his team with a save.

JP, the argument isn't with shots v. shots on goal.
if you take 20 shots -- 1 scores, 10 are saved by the keeper, 1 hits the post, 3 go wide but are tipped away by the keeper, 1 hits the post and 4 are blocked by a defender but at the cage -- and I ask you "how many shots on goal for your team", is your answer 20, 15, 11, 16 or 17?

 

There are 11 shots on goal.

Edit: didn't read that three were tipped away by the keeper...ehh it's a judgment call then, but if they're parried or pushed out I'd go with 14...which wasn't a choice. Also there are two hitting post, but they're in separate categories haha. I think we can all agree the statkeeper is off.

 

Thank you. I agree.
The f-tard tonight would have said 44...

 

This is why I said the guy should forget about keeping shots on goal. If you don't know what the hell you're doing (and he seems not to), then you end up counting shots that go off the crossbar, shots that are kinda close to the goal, shots that ended up bouncing and maybe would've gone wide, but what the heck let's call it on goal so Johnny looks like he's better than he is, etc.

 

See... the key in that sentence is "3 go wide, but were tipped..." They weren't on goal, they were wide and tipped away anyway...