Alden, you give no praise to Stephen Hunt's 'on target' shot. It was a delicate flick on the D to tee it up for himself and volley it 'Goalbound', it would have required a great save or 'parry' from Szczesny. You also say 'Hunt's shot was going nowhere near Fletcher until the deflection, so it's the deflection that leads the ball to find the goalscorer and therefore a significant change of direction.' Therefore are you implying that if a shot is made and is parried by a goalkeeper that makes a signifcant change in direction to a player in a goalscoring opportunity, the inital shot would not lead to an assist?

Perhaps, but I think it's easy to say you think sometimes these deserve potential assists, but another thing in having a definition which both rewards what the majority think should be assists as well as being able to apply ALL kinds of goals to this definition while retaining consistency and not becoming too subjective. Generally for a keeper parry it is the case the the shot is good enough for the keeper not to catch and creating the chance for a goal on the rebound. However this is not always the case with defensive interventions, which can come in the shape of deflections or tackles, it can also be impossible to tell whether a 'shot' is on target or indeed intentional. We do however apply a goal-line clearance rule for when a defender becomes in essence a keeper for a goal-line clearance. The current definition generally allows us to see whether the same chance could have been manufactured without the deflection, which is a good way of determining significance. As for the point you have raised here Jon, we simply don't decide goalscorers, as these are determined by the PA, as this allows us to provide a simple and consistent method of determining these, without the need for us to get too complected or involve inconsistancies.

THud. Perfect reasoning and fully supported. However, I suggest you "read the rules" :) Basically sums up why I keep saying the rules should be changed for shots on target. Another example ... if the shot is on target and would easily have been saved but takes a massive deflection and goes in the other corner it IS a goal not an own goal.

So in that instance and to quote Aldin ... the ball would be going "nowhere near" the other corner, but the striker get 3 points anyway. The issue is that Fantasy league just wont change the rules despite common sense saying they should. Assists for penalties when fouled but not for free kicks being an example.

As for assists for free-kicks, there are a few reasons why we don't award these. Firstly in general a penalty is harder to earn. than a free-kick, and gives the potential goalscorer a much greater chance of scoring, so in essence assisting the chance. Usually it's the case that a goal from a free-kick is the direct result of a well taken free-kick and not much to do with what the player has done to earn the free-kick in the first place. It's also the case that several FA Cup replays during the season do not show footage of a player being fouled, so we would be unable to review these assists in the detail we do with others. Live match reports may report the player to be fouled, but we also know these not to be 100% consistent and i'm sure you agree that constancy is the most important factor of providing a fair all round game.

A solid argument I make your last comment bang on!!

Hunts shot ON TARGET is more worthy of an assist than a goalkeeper hoofing it downfield and a defender heading it (and it did change the direction and trajectory so that in itself is significant).

Thanks for the comment Jon. The Swansea header didn't change the direction on a horizontal plane of Kenny's kick, the ball only gained height and stayed on the same line, so an assist as per the definition. It may have been significant but not a significant change of direction, as there was no change of direction. Hunt's shot was going nowhere near Fletcher until the deflection, so it's the deflection that leads the ball to find the goalscorer and therefore a significant change of direction. I would suggest reading the rules as per listed on the game guide.

I have read the rules. I have been playing for 10+ years. Dont be condescending. I have said this many times ... its time to CHANGE the rules

Hi Jon, Apologies, I didn't mean that to sound condescending, it's been a busy week. I'm not sure your opinion is shared by the majority here, but we'll certainly think about your comments.