Talk:2017–18 UEFA Europa League knockout phase

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

Dispute with Crowsus

@Chanheigeorge, S.A. Julio, Skyblueshaun, and Kante4: Good evening. I am having a dispute with @Crowsus: as he is questioning UEFA.com source about two own goals scored in benefit of Athletic Bilbao and flooding it with other sources stating that they weren't own goals, some of them obviously not neutral. In fact, Crowsus is not neutral too, as he identifies himself as being an Athletic fan. One of the own goals was on last match on Thursday against Spartak Moscow and the other one was at a 2012–13 match against HJK. He also presents YouTube videos trying to prove his points, with no success, as on Spartak's case it's an obvious own goal (UEFA.com's right) and on HJK's case it's next to impossible to prove UEFA.com is wrong. On the other hand, if we approve this without much discussion, it can be a bad precedent on which several UEFA.com reports may be questioned without consistent basis. I would like to remind the case involving the 2016–17 Vojvodina vs Dinamo Minsk match, on which UEFA.com version was obviously wrong (attributing Dinamo's goal to Bykov instead of Budnik). It was discussed at length before a final decision to go against UEFA source. Some time later, UEFA.com corrected the report. I am not interested in an edit war, so I would like to invite you to intervene. Anyway, I thank you all for the attention. The Replicator (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@80.117.47.5: This IP also disagreed with Crowsus, so he might be interested too in participating on this discussion. The Replicator (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only simply follow as UEFA pdf report document show. It is a o.g.--80.117.47.5 (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you haven't actually ever made an edit to an article (under that IP at least) so although your point is valid, I'm going to seek other opinions. Were you aware that I had changed the format of the edit to a note? Crowsus (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll just repeat everything I have put in the summaries.

1. These came to my attention due to being goals for the club I support, no argument there. But the point is equally valid regardless of what club is involved.

2. This (Spartak) is not an 'obvious own goal'. The shot was 100% going into the goal before the defender's pathetic attempt to clear. The overall direction of the ball did not change, it was already going in and it still went in. If a goalkeeper made a similarly awful attempt to save, it would be the attacker's goal. Same rule applies. No idea why UEFA have opted for this stance when the attacker would always want to be credited with the goal and the defender wouldn't. Compare this to many, many goals awarded to the attacker when a key part of the incidents is a deflection off a defender. Off the top of my head, one example is from 1998 FIFA World Cup Group C where France's 2nd goal was correctly given as an OG as the attempted block flicked it over the goalkeeper, but the 3rd awarded to Henry even though the (same) defender stops it on the line with one foot and knocks it in with the other. Footage. Another is Figo's much-lauded goal at Euro 2000 when the shot hit Adams which caused it to spin the way it did (Footage), it's still Figo's goal but has always amused me that it got the praise it did when it wasn't a clean strike. There will be countless other examples of goals being given to the attacker despite a defender's involvement. In every football culture I'm aware of, unless it's a blatant OG which this certainly is not, then the credit should be given to the attacker. He hit the shot, it was going in, it still went in after the defender touched it once, surely it's his goal to all reasonable observers. Here is the footage for review.

3. The Toquero goal claim is weaker, certainly, however the only camera angle available is not conclusive at all, both players are moving in the same direction towards the ball. Again, it seems baffling to me that when faced with such ambiguous evidence, UEFA would opt for awarding the goal to the defender who doesn't want the credit rather than the attacker who does. I should also add that while some of the sources I provided are match reports from the time, others (from different newspapers to the match reports) are from years later reviewing Toquero's career, and they specifically mention him scoring this goal, so it would seem there's been no later attempt to rectify any error identified in awarding the goal to him initially (another conclusion being that nobody really cares either way?).

4. In both cases, this isn't just some claim I've invented having watched the match with no evidence to back it up, or some random blog entry on a crusade wanting to right wrongs. I provided several sources (mostly Spanish newspapers, but that is to be expected as they are the ones with more than just a passing interest in the events) who have stated that Rico was the scorer of the third goal v Spartak, and Toquero was the scorer of the second v HJK. Athletic's (very detailed) site has been provided as well, obviously that is biased but it does show that there is some dispute over the identity of the goalscorer, I'm sure nobody would suggest that they would just attribute every own goal to the nearest attacker for the sake of it? It's a goal regardless of who they award it to, and in fact they probably paid their players a goal bonus so it would possibly be better for them to declare both of them as OGs! So, point is, there are verified sources for this assertion and I have provided them. Was even moaned at for overkill (and 'flooding' above) by The Replicator (why do you have two accounts, by the way?) for trying to provide a decent number of these to support that it wasn't just one rogue website giving the wrong scorer.

5. The edits were being added as a side note, not disrupting the main information presented. I did initally make an attempt to have the Spartak scorer changed in the main text using the sources provided but this was reverted, and it was never going to be accepted over the UEFA version, so I apologise for wasting time with that wrong approach. However, UEFA is not some kind of god that cannot be questioned. It also does not own the Wikipedia articles on its competitions. So when an incident of this nature occurs and disputed information appears in several independent publications, I see no good reason why that should not also be included in the article as long as the information is verified by decent sources (yes), adheres to NPOV (yes, all I stated was that Rico/Toquero hit the shot and some media reported it as his goal, that statement is true regardless of the ownership of the goal itself) and does not disrupt the article (yes, it's a ref point beside the scorer's name which translates to a note at the bottom of the page, can't see why anyone would object to that, would anyone even spot it?).

I haven't said that UEFA is wrong, merely that other sources have provided different information, and since the UEFA report still has precedence, why should this other information not also be included in a small way rather than ignored entirely as is being proposed by the reverts? To do otherwise is censorship, to be honest, and there's no need for it to happen. I have focused on Athletic Bilbao goals as they are my club but I'm sure there's many more examples of incorrect attribution in this way (although I had a look at Oyarzabal's OG from the same night out of curiosity as to what form it took, no dispute there, it's comically bad, have a look). UEFA stats should be respected of course, but not unquestioningly when there's credible evidence to the contrary.

PS I'm going to copy this to the wider WP:FOOTY page, as there might be other valid points of view there. Crowsus (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(discussions match up to this point. 00:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC))

The official report pdf document of the match we need follow is this. It's a o.g. for the UEFA. Otherwise, try to write with a e-mail to UEFA.com--80.117.47.5 (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Replicator and 80.117.47.5: Hi folks, well there hasn't really been enough input to establish consensus either way, I'm not really into arguments (despite how it appears from those edits) so I'll back out from the UEFA pages, however I have added the same notes (not changing the existing display itself) to the club season articles which I hope will be acceptable, particularly since the stats for the seasons are primarily sourced from the Athletic Bilbao website, which has a different stat to the organisers of the tournament in question. For the Toquero goal, it actually showed it as his, so the note was switched around to mention the UEFA side of things! Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Crowsus: Hi. I think that's a good way to settle this, precisely due to the lack of feedback. Athletic Bilbao's season articles are more appropriate for that information. On a last note, I thank you for helping us to solve this on good-faith. The Replicator (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you so much.--80.117.47.5 (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]