a shot that hits the post or bar not counted as a shot on target. Does anyone know and if so can they clarify why?
The bar and posts, in theory, should be included in stats as attempts on target as they are part of the actual main target, so to speak. And, after all, you can also score by going in-off these parts of the goal.
This. Agree. That's like saying if you score in off the post or bar you score with a shot that was initially off target. I think it's just sky sports bullshit imho. If anyone can remember Jeff Whitley's penalty in play off shoot out vs Palace. Sky would count that as a better effort than if he had hit the post and say well he hit the target. PS It's not the worst penalty I have ever seen that accolade belongs to Eric Cantona who sent the keeper the wrong way but hit it so softly the keeper got back up and saved it at the other side.
Let Joe Kinnear explain it, it would be more fun !. The pdc effect how can you have so many points !, surely some will be offside.
No they`re not. They define the target area, they`re not part of it. Assume there`s no keeper. A shot is taken. Inside that area it`s on target and a goal, outside that area (including a woodwork rebound) it misses therefore is off target. A shot going in off the woodwork is obviously on target because it`s a goal.
I'm going to disagree. I'f a shot goes "in off" it's on target. If it hits the woodwork and comes out it's off target. As said above any on target shot would result in a goal if not blocked or saved.
So if a a team wins 1-0 and the only attempt at goal went in of the crossbar, then they won without a single shot on target? That's nuts. The Op asks a very good question and I think hitting the woodwork should be a shot on target. I'm giving the fella rep.
I disagree I think a shot on target should require the keeper to make a save. If it hits the post and deflects in then it should be a shot on target, however, like in most cases, if the shot just bounces off the post/crossbar then it shouldn't be a shot on target
Not at all ! We're not talking about what is stat-wise defined as the target mate. Although I understand, all we are saying is that the posts/bar are part of the target, therefore, if you strike part of a target, you still hit the target....in other words, why say the posts/bar don't exist. Or to put it another way, ....if the ball goes into the goal off the posts/bar the goal that's scored is deemed as a 'target hit.' They can't have it both ways !
Cant believe this is causing so much debate. Just imagine there is no GK and no defenders, you take a shot. If said shot results in a goal it's on target. If not it isn't. Simples.
