Is number 9 onside or offside?

[holidaysong]

I was watching the game with my mates last night and as soon as it happened I remembered this thread and was able to give the referee speech on why he was onside confirming how much of a football nut I was.. :o

[pineapple stu]

He was lying on the ground after getting a smack from Buffon. Van Nistelrooy was on his feet.
All three players fell over each other. He was watching the goal when it went in, so wasn't that badly hurt and certainly could have gotten up.

It's unfortunate, but this -


If we did not have this interpretation of the player being off the pitch, then what could happen is that the defending team could use the tactic of stepping off the pitch deliberately to play players offside, and that clearly is unacceptable.

- sums up exactly why the goal should have been allowed. He presumably didn't know the rules and thought that to get back on to the pitch would play van Nistelrooy onside and cause confusion.

[DmanDmythDledge]

- sums up exactly why the goal should have been allowed.
That was what used to happen and why the rule was introduced.

[stojkovic]

If a player steps off the pitch deliberately - fine he should be penalised. Panucci DID NOT step off the pitch.

I have the most recently published copy of the Laws of the Game (2006) and it mentions nothing about what was posted above.

My boss in work is a LSL ref - his copy doesnt mention it either. He says it was OFFSIDE.

UEFA say that this is a DIRECTIVE issued for referees to interpret.

I agree with Harry Redknapp (unusually) - the linesman made a mistake and probably didnt see Panucci on the ground and UEFA and the Refs Association are just trying to cover it up.

[NeilMcD]

As soon as I saw the goal I thought it was offiside. Somebody falling off the pitch is still interfering with play and is deemed to be on the goal line.

[cartman]

[QUOTE=stojkovic;960813]If a player steps off the pitch deliberately - fine he should be penalised. Panucci DID NOT step off the pitch.

so now you want referees to interpret whether player is INTENTIONALLY leaving the pitch.. how are they supposed to judge this???
in my eyes, panucci could def have made his way back onto the pitch after a few seconds - therefore he was INTENTIONALLY staying off the pitch..so does this not make the decision right??
so, he may not have left the pitch intentionally, but he without a doubt stayed off the pitch intenionally:eek:
i kinda agree that the rules are unclear at the moment - but i think the right call was made last night

[pineapple stu]

so now you want referees to interpret whether player is INTENTIONALLY leaving the pitch.. how are they supposed to judge this???
in my eyes, panucci could def have made his way back onto the pitch after a few seconds - therefore he was INTENTIONALLY staying off the pitch..so does this not make the decision right??
Exactly.

They pointed out on RTÉ that Panucci was watching the action while lyng down and could quite easily have made an effort to get up and come back into play.

[crc]

I think it may be helpful to imagine what the situation would have been if Panucci had been bundled over exactly the same way by Buffon but had landed on the pitch (perhaps in the vicinity of the corner flag away from the action) . Even if he was in complete agony with a broken leg, he would be playing RVN onside the whole time. The only way the goal wouldn't have counted would be if the ref had stopped play for an injury, which he didn't.

Panucci wasn't technically off the field of play - his position was deemed to be exactly on the goal line.

There is no active / inactive distinction for defenders, only attackers. Attackers must be seeking to gain an advantage to be offside; but a defender plays everyone ahead of him onside even if he is tying his boot laces out by the sideline.

[osarusan]

Because Panucci had gone off the field of play without permission, he was deemed to be still on the field of play - on the goal-line - for the purpose of the offside rule, and was therefore playing Van Nostelrooy onside.......is that right?

This rule was introduced to stop defenders playing attackers offside by simply moving off the field. I can understand the spirit of the law is to stop a kind of defensive cheating, but in this case, Panucci didn't go off the field deliberately, he was propelled off by momentum. He could have come back on quicker than he did alright.

Is he deemed still on the field of play simply because he went off without permission, or because he didn't return as quickly as possible? Is it because the referee ruled he was deliberately not coming back on to force a player offside?

That rule seems to create the possibility of a defending player lying beyond the goal-line with a broken leg (or to go to extremes, the defender could be dead), having moved off the field of play through momentum, but being ruled still technically on the field of play, and playing a striker onside. That is certainly not in the spirit of the game either.

[Schumi]

That rule seems to create the possibility of a defending player lying beyond the goal-line with a broken leg (or to go to extremes, the defender could be dead), having moved off the field of play through momentum, but being ruled still technically on the field of play, and playing a striker onside. That is certainly not in the spirit of the game either.As crc said above, that possibility already exists if the injured player is on the pitch. I don't see how it's worse if they're off the pitch. The ref should stop play for the injury in this situation anyway.

[osarusan]

I don't see how it's worse if they're off the pitch.
I disagree - off the pitch has always been seen as a 'safe area'.

The law was brought in to stop defenders betraying the spirit of the game by 'cheating' and stepping over the end-line to play an attacker off-side. That's fair enough, but it has the potential to punish players who go over the end-line with no intention of 'cheating' anybody.
It also has the potential to reward an attacking player who deliberately takes advantage of an injury to a defensive player who is lying off the field of play (we've all seen injured players limp/crawl to the side-line/end-line) by allowing himself to be played onside. That certainly isn't in the spirit of the game either.

I'm not accusing Van Nistelrooy of doing it, but it is possible, and in my opinion, wrong.

[Réiteoir]

If a player steps off the pitch deliberately - fine he should be penalised. Panucci DID NOT step off the pitch.

I have the most recently published copy of the Laws of the Game (2006) and it mentions nothing about what was posted above.

Well it appears in my FA copy of the Laws - the most recent ones - which is 2007/08.

The Laws are published yearly - in 2006 the section that this is outlined in (which was called "Q&A on the Laws of the Game") was published as a seperate book - so it wouldn't have appeared - thankfully FIFA merged the two in 2007/08.


My boss in work is a LSL ref - his copy doesnt mention it either. He says it was OFFSIDE.

Sure - don't you all think all referees in Ireland are "rubbish", "brutal", should be "sacked" and "****" - funny how the tune changes to fit your arguements when it suits...


UEFA say that this is a DIRECTIVE issued for referees to interpret.

It is - it's a directive issued by the IFAB - as an addendum to the main Laws.


I agree with Harry Redknapp (unusually) - the linesman made a mistake and probably didnt see Panucci on the ground and UEFA and the Refs Association are just trying to cover it up.

Not really - I spoke to Terje Hauge, one of Norwegian FIFA Panel, yesterday about this (he's in contact with Tom Henning Ovrebo and the two Norwegian ARs who are at the Finals) and he told me that the Swedish AR DID spot Pannucci off the pitch - was well aware of the situation and applied Law correctly.

[osarusan]

Sure - don't you all think all referees in Ireland are "rubbish", "brutal", should be "sacked" and "****" - funny how the tune changes to fit your arguements when it suits...

When was Stojkovic complaining about Irish referees before?

[Réiteoir]

It was a tongue in cheek reference to the mob mentality of the majority here Osa

[TheBoss]

If you being more technical about Panucci, he did not step off the pitch, he actually was in air as he went over the line, how could he ask permission to leave the field of play when he was already over and a bit injured, he was doing the right thing, off the pitch when he was injured, not involved with the play.

[pineapple stu]

He wasn't injured. He was grand.

[TheBoss]

Well, he was holding his head :D

[stojkovic]

Well it appears in my FA copy of the Laws - the most recent ones - which is 2007/08.

The Laws are published yearly - in 2006 the section that this is outlined in (which was called "Q&A on the Laws of the Game") was published as a seperate book - so it wouldn't have appeared - thankfully FIFA merged the two in 2007/08.

Fair enough I bow to your superior knowledge, I will have to get an updated copy and review.


Sure - don't you all think all referees in Ireland are "rubbish", "brutal", should be "sacked" and "****" - funny how the tune changes to fit your arguements when it suits...

Dont see how this is relevant.


It is - it's a directive issued by the IFAB - as an addendum to the main Laws.
As I said - it's a directive not a Law. Like booking players for diving.


Not really - I spoke to Terje Hauge, one of Norwegian FIFA Panel, yesterday about this (he's in contact with Tom Henning Ovrebo and the two Norwegian ARs who are at the Finals) and he told me that the Swedish AR DID spot Pannucci off the pitch - was well aware of the situation and applied Law correctly.

Well he would say that wouldnt he.

The Off-side Law has been tweaked and updated numerous times recently to favour the attacking team and I totally agree with that but this one is gone too far IMO.

[Armando]

Van Nistelrooy - definitely onside tonight:

A player leaving the field of play because of momentum during play, is not deemed to have left without the Referee's permission and can therefore re-enter without the Referee's permission. In this instance, although the defender is off the field of play, (and until he returns to the field of play), he should be deemed to be standing on the goal-line (in the field of play) when considering offside. The Assistant Referee should stand in line with the last opponent on the field of play (which in this case will probably be the defending goalkeeper). When deciding offside in this scenario, the two last defending opponents are the defender who has travelled off the field of play, and the defending player who is nearest to the goal line on the field of play (which in all probability will be the goalkeeper).

If an uninjured defender purposefully remains off the field in an attempt to place an attacker in an offside position, then that defender should also be deemed to be standing on the goal-line (on the field of play) when considering offside. Trickery of this nature circumvents the spirit of the offside Law

I'm confused!? Didn't you say in this thread weeks back that a situation like this the striker would be definitely OFFSIDE?

I pretty much summed up what you're summising now, back in post #14.

This is the exact situation the op was talking about - glad to know I was right:)

[TheBoss]

http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=894564&postcount=1

http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=898859&postcount=17

[Greenforever]

According to media reports Van Nistleroy didnt know if he was offside or not, and it's his job to put the ball in the net, which he did.

My view is the ref was 100% right in his interpretation of the law, but the Italians did not appear to know the law which for professionals is unbelievable. I bet the FAI would have our players up to speed:rolleyes:

Due to the high level of diving / cheating etc, you could not allow players to go off injured to get someone caught offside.


Here's a different poser

Had the so called injured defender being sprawled out in the 6 yard box, would Holland have put the ball out of play?

[noby]

It's not up to Holland to put the ball out of play, it's up to the ref to stop play.

[Greenforever]

It's not up to Holland to put the ball out of play, it's up to the ref to stop play.


Yes but teams constantly put the ball out of play, and to be honest I hate it, you wouldnt get it in Rugby GAA Australian Rules etc

[sullanefc]

Yes but teams constantly put the ball out of play, and to be honest I hate it, you wouldnt get it in Rugby GAA Australian Rules etc

I agree. It was fine in the beginning for genuine injuries, now it is a joke with all the diving and feigning injuries just to get the ball put out. Why not let the medics come on the pitch and play on like in rugby.

[pineapple stu]

Which is why FIFA re-emphasised the ref's role in stopping play a few months back, so there is now no onus on a team to put the ball out of play.

[noby]

I'm sure it was touched upon earlier, but perhaps Réiteoir could answer:

Scenario one: player goes down with head injury, referee stops play, player leaves field. No problem.

Scenario two: player goes down with head injury, in his own half, but his momentum brings him off the pitch. He is potentially keeping someone onside. Does the referee stop play, acknowledge the player "leaving" the field, and start play again, or can he acknowledge this without stopping play?