By that logic, Panucci had plenty of time to get back on the pitch too.Quote:
Originally Posted by stojkovic
Printable View
By that logic, Panucci had plenty of time to get back on the pitch too.Quote:
Originally Posted by stojkovic
He was lying on the ground after getting a smack from Buffon. Van Nistelrooy was on his feet.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
OFFSIDE laws are a joke thats why we are all arguing over it.
It used to be straight forward.
As Giles once said "If you're not interferring with play, you shouldnt be on the pitch".
Cannot believe the goal was allowed tonight. Its not as if Panucci deliberately look to gain an advantage by walking off the pitch. If it was given against Ireland everyone would be screaming at the TVs.
RTE tried to make a point by getting an anonymous LOI ref to agree with the match officials. :rolleyes:
Any one know if any of the TV stations showed archives of similar goals?
FIFA rules used to be very clear because there are so few few rules in football. Since they started to interpret the rules in different ways it has started to destroy football. :(
Pete - it's pretty clear in Law what can and cannot be allowed with regards to this - in fact it's the most clearest part of Law 11.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
The USSF directives to their referees - taken from FIFA make it perfectly clear that the goal stands.
or was that post just a veiled attempt for yet another dig at LoI Referees?Quote:
11.11 DEFENDER LEGALLY OFF THE FIELD OF PLAY
# A defender who leaves the field during the course of play and does not immediately return must still be considered in determining where the second to last defender is for the purpose of judging which attackers are in an offside position. Such a defender is considered to be on the touch line or goal line closest to his off-field position. A defender who leaves the field with the referee's permission (in the examples of correcting equipment or seeking treatment for a blood injury - and who thus requires the referee's permission to return) is not included in determining offside position.
I will bow to your superior knowledge but when was that brought in?Quote:
Originally Posted by Réiteoir
You will find I rarely mention referees in my posts so I don't have many digs at them. Just suggesting that because RTE contacted a "former FIFA referee" does not how the person up as an expert. Sure even Buttimer is a FIFA referee & he sees jersey clashes everywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Réiteoir
So basically, unless a player is ordered off the pitch by a ref to receive attention for an injury, no matter where he is on the pitch, he is still deemed in play, thus playing Van Nistelrooy onside?
Andy Gray thinks offsides (and I don't think horseys should be allowed to play football anyway)
http://www.shareonall.com/Seattle_Slew_ogmq_avi.htm
Tuesday 10 June 2008
UEFA supports Dutch goal decision
by Mark Chaplin from Basel
UEFA has emphasised that the goal scored by Netherlands striker Ruud van Nistelrooy in last night's UEFA EURO 2008™ match against Italy in Berne was valid, and that referee Peter Fröjdfeldt acted correctly in awarding the goal.
Not offside
UEFA General Secretary David Taylor was reacting to claims from some quarters that Van Nistelrooy was standing in an offside position when he scored the first of the Netherlands' goals in their 3-0 win. "I would like to take the opportunity to explain and emphasise that the goal was correctly awarded by the referee team," he said. "I think there's a lack of understanding among the general football public, and I think it's understandable because this was an unusual situation.
The player was not offside, because, in addition to the Italian goalkeeper, there was another Italian player in front of the goalscorer. Even though that other Italian player at the time had actually fallen off the pitch, his position was still relevant for the purposes of the offside law."
Still involved
The starting point, said Mr Taylor, is the Laws of the Game – Law 11 – which deals with offside, and whereby a player is in an offside position if he is nearer to his opponents' goalline than both the ball and the second last opponent. "There need to be two defenders involved," the UEFA General Secretary said. "If you think back to the situation, the first is the goalkeeper, and the second is the defender who, because of his momentum, actually had left the field of play. But this defender was still deemed to be part of the game. Therefore he is taken into consideration as one of the last two opponents.
As a result, Ruud Van Nistelrooy was not nearer to the opponents' goal than the second last defender and, therefore, could not be in an offside position.
Rare incident
"This is a widely-known interpretation of the offside law amongst referees that is not generally known by the wider football public," he continued. "Incidents like this are very unusual – although I'm informed that there was an incident like this about a month ago in a Swiss Super League match between FC Sion and FC Basel 1893. [It was] initially suggested that this [goal] was a mistake by the referee in terms of the offside law – the commentator later apologised publicly, as he didn't realise that this was the correct application of the law. "
Law applied
Mr Taylor concluded: "So let's be clear – the referees' team applied the law in the correct manner. 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.
The most simple and practical interpretation of the law in this instance is the one that is adopted by referees throughout the world – that is that unless you have permission from the referee to be off the pitch, you are deemed to be on it and deemed to be part of the game. That is why the Italian defender, even though his momentum had taken him off the pitch, was still deemed to be part of the game, and therefore the attacking player put the ball into the net, and it was a valid goal. The law in this place was applied absolutely correctly."
Can someone forward that press release on to Clive Tyldsley and David Pleat?
Their secret is out. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Réiteoir
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by stojkovic
It's unfortunate, but this -
- 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.Quote:
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.
That was what used to happen and why the rule was introduced.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
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.
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.
[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
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan