When is a shot not a shot? Soccer bettors were left dumbfounded on Tuesday night after Bet365 ruled that their shot on target bets had not proven successful. It might seem like a fair ruling had the keeper not been forced to palm a shot over the bar of his goal, an attempt that would have otherwise nestled in the back of his net.
So why did Bet365 come to that ruling? The supposed shot in question came from a corner kick courtesy of Barcelona’s Raphinha. Playing against Paris Saint German in the Quarter Final of the UEFA Champions League, the Brazilian winger curled a ball in from the corner that forced a last-gasp save out of the PSG keeper:
Given that the ball would have gone in had the keeper not made the save, bettors were understandably shocked to see their shot on target bets on Raphinha marked as losses, as well as bets on PSG keeper Gianluigi Donnarumma to make the save. The shot would have brought Raphinha’s game shot on target tally to two, and Donnarumma’s save tally to three.
We settle bets in line with Opta data and their definitions.”
Faced with many complaints across social media, sportsbook Bet365 was forced to respond. It said: “We settle bets in line with Opta data and their definitions. As Raphinha has been credited with 1 Shot on Target, bets have settled in line with the statistic.”
Interestingly, based on Opta rules, Raphinha’s attempt would have been considered a shot on target if it had been a goal. That’s because the sport data firm defines a shot on target as any goal attempt that goes into the net regardless of intent – but only if it is a goal. Opta ruled that Raphinha did not intend to shoot from the corner, and Donnarumma’s save was downgraded to a clearance as a result.
Regardless, the explanation has done little to quell the backlash from angry bettors, particularly given that UEFA classed the attempt as a shot on target in its own commentary.