When is a volley not a volley?

A debate raged within the confines of the Sports Desk of The Times as the match reports and comment pieces from the England-Russia match arrived. It concerned Michael Owen's second goal, described - as such strikes have been for years - as a volley. It is a description that I have railed against longer than I care to remember; I've bored countless followers of the game, and probably those who couldn't give two hoots, for years. And so it proved again on Wednesday night as I attempted to convince my colleagues that Owen did not strike "a volley".

My argument, which found favour with only two of those present, is such: a shot can only be described as a volley if it has not hit the floor in travelling between one player and the next. In this case, Emile Heskey nodded the ball down, it took one bounce, and Owen struck it. Hence, not a volley.

Surely every ball that is not hit from on the floor becomes a volley, if correspondents' descriptions are taken literally. And let's not bring half-volleys into this discussion. Half-volleys are balls hit simultaneously as the ball hits the floor. We won't split hairs by suggesting there is a split-second difference involved.

To apply the volley logic to tennis, every shot played once a rally has begun would constitute one; because the ball is being hit while in the air. Obviously, that is a ridiculous notion.

Surely, then the same logic must apply to football.

- Mark Giles

Where do you stand on the volley debate? Send us your comments.

Comments

[shorehamview]

Hits the floor - not a volley. End of.

[Sajid]

Owen's goal was neither a volley or a half-volley.

[Doug]

Not a volley...

Anyone who says different knows nothing about sport...

[Richard Wood]

Throwing my two pence in as well - no, it wasn't a volley, for the reasons stated. I would always have said a half-volley is hitting it as, or just after it's hit the floor. This was a great shot, but not a volley. Volleys are highly regarded because the striker has had no time to compose themselves or judge the spin of the ball. Hitting a perfect volley is one of the most beautiful things you can see in football - see Rooney against Newcastle for details.

[Jools Bamford]

When we played Headers & Volleys (miss and you go in goal, saved by the post etc) at school only proper volleys were allowed. Another version incorporated half volleys which as I understood meant the ball bounced once, NOT striking it the same moment it touches the floor.

[Jools Bamford]

When we played Headers & Volleys (miss and you go in goal, saved by the post etc) at school only proper volleys were allowed. Another version incorporated half volleys which as I understood meant the ball bounced once, NOT striking it the same moment it touches the floor.

[Rob]

I always think of the sport volleyball where the ball can not hit the ground.

[Sean Philip]

Well, thinking back to the days at school where we used to play 'headers and volleys', we would constitute a volley as striking any ball that had not previously touched the floor between a pass. Scoring a goal from a 'non-volley', and Owen's goal would come into this category, was penalised by the striker of the ball being forced to play in goal.

[Alan Gillespie]

Nah, it wasn't a volley. It was a sclaffed cross.

[Martin Nielsen, Denmark]

Michael Owens goal - however well-taken it was - does not qualify as a volley. At least not in Denmark, where I´m from. It would only have been a volly, if Owen had struck the ball, before it hit the ground.

[Fego]

I agree - it's lazy journalism. A volley is a rare treat in football and a half-volley usually rises all the way into the net, such is the angle of strike. Hitting it from a bounce is simply a shot. For true (flying) volleys, see Robin van Persie's goal of the season in 2006-07 for Arsenal.