Ruud's goal against TCH >>> Rule sucks

[FrenchFlair]

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrenchFlair
Sorry Nicephoras, but Van Nistelrooij's goal is clearly offside.
When he received the ball on left side, Robben was not offside (but very close to be).. However, VN was widely offside. There is position offside.
Of course, in this case, if the referree think VN doesnt participate to the game, he will not whistle offside.
But Robben would shot himself on goal or wait for Ruud to be back the last defender position before passing to Ruud.

There was a real referree foul.

The rules doesnt need to be changed. If you look closer to it,
if Ruud can be 10 meters front of last defenders at the beginning of these action, he will keep this advantage at the end of these.
It's not fair for the defender.
It's why the position offside rule exists.

But I have to say spaniard referee is not so good.
He forget a lot of fouls for both teams.


Nope. According to the rules, read exactly, Ruud is not offside because he's not interfering with the first pass. Upon the second pass, he's not offside because Robben is already behind the defense.
Its a dumb rule.

You're right... I'm sorry.
I thought the rule was not so stupid.
Logic would say that an offside player which not participate to an action will be offside if i participate later, because he has a real advantage at the end of action (in this case)

Ex international referee Joel Quiniou said after the match, Ruud was not offside because when he shot, it was a new action.
But in fact, because he was 10 meters front off defenders, he has an adavntage on them to shot.

This rule really sucks...

[nicephoras]

Its a stupid, stupid rule, but the interpretation was correct. They need to change it, although I'd have thought Allardyce's tactics on free kicks would have told them that already. In terms of fairness, there's no way that goal should be allowed.

[david dunn]

I read the rules and I think R Van Nistlerooy is offside his position change the position of the defenders and the keeper, and he profit from his position to score...

the rule allow to give offside, and the referees must call offsides on these actions, else the game is totally changed...

[Motterman]

Don't hate the playa, hate the game. - :rolleyes:

But seriously, it's a bizzare interpretation of the rule that FIFA is pushing right now. I wish they'd just get the "even is on" part correct more often...

[afgrijselijkheid]

In terms of fairness, there's no way that goal should be allowed.


you want to discuss terms of fairness and the thing you question is the LEGAL GOAL?!?

just nauseating

[Achtung]

The interpretation of the rule is correct, but I think almost everyone agrees the rule needs to be changed. RVN (among others) is badly exposing the loopholes. I like the idea of passive offsides, but it needs to be improved from what it is.

[Motterman]

you want to discuss terms of fairness and the thing you question is the LEGAL GOAL?!?

LOL! :cool:

[nicephoras]

you want to discuss terms of fairness and the thing you question is the LEGAL GOAL?!?

just nauseating

Oh come ON! I'm the one that agreed the goal was legal! See the first damn post in this thread! Nor did I start the thread. Christ. Quit jumping down everyone's throat. Its certainly not MY fault the Dutch lost.

The rule needs to be changed, but the goal, as it was scored, was legal.

[RobB]

A player can be onside three ways, 1 the pass is played by a defender, 2 there are two defenders between him and the goal and 3 he`s behind the ball when the pass is made.

The rule should be that if a player is in an offside position but not interfering with play in the first phase of an attack he needs to have got behind two defenders to be able to get involved in the second phase.

Robben running from deep and the Czech defence holding a line meant RVN only had to wait a second for Robben to run past him to become onside again despite being 10 yards ahead of the last defender.

[eejit]

Another great example of how those crock of sh!t rulemakers at UEFA are doing everything they can to mess up the game.

A striker may as well wait in the 18 yard box and as long as the first pass is not to him he will always be onside.

What a joke!!!

[eejit]

The rule needs to be changed, but the goal, as it was scored, was legal.

The rule never needed changing in the first place. Why can't UEFA stop mucking thinks up.

[Suss]

There is nobody that takes more advantage of the bad rule that Van Horse Face. He spends the entire game in an offside position so the defense never knows where he is. He then sneaks back onside right before the ball is played. It makes him very difficult to mark. Its not only on free kicks that he does it. The goal was just the worst possible example of how he takes advantage of the rule. I guess you gotta give the guy credit for knowing the rule and how to take advantage of it, but you wonder how much of his effectiveness would go away if the rule was changed.

[footie-fool]

The rule never needed changing in the first place. Why can't UEFA stop mucking thinks up.

FIFA makes the rules... complain to them.

[BSjanitor]

I don't think there's anything to be changed in this rule. Ruud took advantage of it and now we can all whine about it because it's unfair. I don't see Czech Rep. whining about it. They went and won the game, instead. Ruud may have been 20 yards in front of the last defender when Davids passed the ball, but notice Robben still had to run until he was past van Nistelrooy before he could cross. I hope more strikers take advantage of this, forcing defenses to adapt to it, which will in turn open up other tactical holes. If it's going to cost them goals, that's great. I want to see more goals. 2.3 goals per game is not cutting it for me.

[Fevernova99]

The last goal was scored the same way, the scorer was behind the last defender when the shot was taken and remained behind them until the ball was passed to him and sent into the net...

[AFCA]

Another great example of how those crock of sh!t rulemakers at UEFA are doing everything they can to mess up the game.

A striker may as well wait in the 18 yard box and as long as the first pass is not to him he will always be onside.

What a joke!!!

Doesn't the rule include something about being the last man between the last defender and the goalie? Because I believe if Robben would not have been 'between' the goalie and RVN it would in fact have been offside.

I agree it's a bit of a weird rule.

[goonsquad]

I don't think there's anything to be changed in this rule. Ruud took advantage of it and now we can all whine about it because it's unfair. I don't see Czech Rep. whining about it. They went and won the game, instead. Ruud may have been 20 yards in front of the last defender when Davids passed the ball, but notice Robben still had to run until he was past van Nistelrooy before he could cross. I hope more strikers take advantage of this, forcing defenses to adapt to it, which will in turn open up other tactical holes. If it's going to cost them goals, that's great. I want to see more goals. 2.3 goals per game is not cutting it for me.

Maybe you should start watching Basketball then. What is the point of having more goals when they are just cheap ones like that? That would just DEVALUE goals in general, which would make the game less exciting in the long run. This bogus rule needs to be changed.

[BSjanitor]

Maybe you should start watching Basketball then. What is the point of having more goals when they are just cheap ones like that? That would just DEVALUE goals in general, which would make the game less exciting in the long run. This bogus rule needs to be changed.
I don't think those goals are cheap. It takes a VALUABLE pass to somebody making an intelligent, VALUABLE run and cross/pass when the player who was originally offside is no long offside. Ruud was in an offside position when Davids passed to Robben. Now, Robben actually had to be onside and make that run behind the Czech defense to get the necessary space to cross the ball to van Nistelrooy, by that time, already back onside.

[afgrijselijkheid]

The last goal was scored the same way, the scorer was behind the last defender when the shot was taken and remained behind them until the ball was passed to him and sent into the net...


yes, but none of the czech fans (or ORANJE haters) will bother to mention that

[nicephoras]

I don't think those goals are cheap. It takes a VALUABLE pass to somebody making an intelligent, VALUABLE run and cross/pass when the player who was originally offside is no long offside. Ruud was in an offside position when Davids passed to Robben. Now, Robben actually had to be onside and make that run behind the Czech defense to get the necessary space to cross the ball to van Nistelrooy, by that time, already back onside.

That's just terrible. Ruud is onside by virtue of being BEHIND Robben. In that situation, if Ruud stays offside, how are the Czechs supposed to deal with him? Because they can't play their offside trap if all it takes is a pass from a player who's past him, like Robben this time. How could Ruud not benefit from this play? What else was Robben going to do with that ball?

Oh, and before Bluedaddy has another cow, yes the goal WAS legal.