Ruud goal: Onside or Offside

[timotheus]

implied :-)

otherwise, say, panucci was a spectator in the stands....

would the rule apply to him also? a spectator? a fan?
he is an italian player :rolleyes:

[code1390]

The refs were right. End of story. A player doesn't magically dissapear when he leaves the field.

[glennaldo_sf]

[img]What if Buffon fouled him and he got injured right on the goal line and Holland decided to play on.

Buffon fouled him?

They play for the same team LOL! Can you foul your own team-mate? What would the call be then, free kick to Italy? Penalty for Itlay againt their own goalkeeper? LOL

[mplsTOON]

...dont like it, dont lay around injured.


this is probably the most specious argument anyone can make as to why it was a legitimate goal as it fails to take the most basic Newtonian physics in account.

I'd like to see someone get up immediately and be aware of their surroundings after getting throttled by a guy who is 3 inches taller and twenty pounds heavier.

[Amsteldam]

Guys, its of no use to argue about this cause the goal will never get reversed.
Even if it did we still win 2-0

So whats the point in harping on about it???

[DaveyGorgeous]

So whats the point in harping on about it???

True. I can understand the frustration soon after the game. But the goal counted and the game is gone. Let's just focus our efforts on the next match.

Good luck Oranje.

[mplsTOON]

Guys, its of no use to argue about this cause the goal will never get reversed.
Even if it did we still win 2-0

So whats the point in harping on about it???

<Gallic shrug>

Because it there and this is Big Soccer? :confused:

[forza_azzurri]

Guys, its of no use to argue about this cause the goal will never get reversed.
Even if it did we still win 2-0

So whats the point in harping on about it???

Amstel ????

You know the tide and strategy of the game can change depending on whether you are leading or not .

Do you think Holland would of had the counter attack chances they had if Italy scored the first goal ?

In this case the Italian players truly believed they were jacked on the first goal. They may not believe it this morning but on the field of play there was no explanation of why the goal was onside.

If I blame anyone I do blame the Italians for letting 1 goal get to their head.

[glennaldo_sf]

Guys, its of no use to argue about this cause the goal will never get reversed.
Even if it did we still win 2-0

So whats the point in harping on about it???

I hate this line of thinking because there are so many other variables to look at. It's not like the game would have played out the same way if the goal had not stood... nehoo.. I voted that it was a goal. After my initial reservations, cause I thought a player who was off the field did not count, I see the logic in not allowing players to just step off the pitch to play someone offside.

[Jasonma]

Onside, no question and I made the comment once I saw the first replay.

A player is active until the ref gives him permission to leave the field. The only judgement in this one is the CR's to determine if the player is injured and play should be stopped for treatment. Play was not stopped, thus the player is still active.

If the player is one of the 11 in the game he could be in th back row of the stands and still count towards determining offsides. Until the ref dismisses him from the field, making him inactive, he counts.

[Amsteldam]

Amstel ????

You know the tide and strategy of the game can change depending on whether you are leading or not .

Do you think Holland would of had the counter attack chances they had if Italy scored the first goal ?

Maybe, maybe not.
But then you're getting into too much speculation IMO

I will admit that 1st goal gave us a bit of an edge

[forza_azzurri]

Onside, no question and I made the comment once I saw the first replay.

A player is active until the ref gives him permission to leave the field. The only judgement in this one is the CR's to determine if the player is injured and play should be stopped for treatment. Play was not stopped, thus the player is still active.

If the player is one of the 11 in the game he could be in th back row of the stands and still count towards determining offsides. Until the ref dismisses him from the field, making him inactive, he counts.

Great explanation !!! I wish you were officiating yesterday so the Italian players new what the hell was going on rather than getting yellow cards.

[bostonsoccermdl]

this is probably the most specious argument anyone can make as to why it was a legitimate goal as it fails to take the most basic Newtonian physics in account.

I'd like to see someone get up immediately and be aware of their surroundings after getting throttled by a guy who is 3 inches taller and twenty pounds heavier.

In a game like this you cant afford to be lying around with the ball bouncing around your penalty area..

Players have a tendency to lie around, and evaluate the situation later, b/c usually they get away with it.

From watching the replay again and again, he wasnt knocked out, and wasnt hurt that bad. This time it bit him in the ass.

Honestly, From watching professionals some times, I have seen more toughness and grit in Sunday adult rec leagues.

And that goes for alot fo teams, not just the italian player in this case.

[ToBeAGooner]

Great explanation !!! I wish you were officiating yesterday so the Italian players new what the hell was going on rather than getting yellow cards.


Maybe a multimillionaire professional soccer player should perhaps know the rules of his own profession.

[timotheus]

Again, he was offside.

Post from another forum, on BBC:

" At 12:58 pm (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/euro2008/2008/06/you_are_the_ref_special.html#comment41) on 10 Jun 2008, HereComeTheFleet (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/profile?userid=2406655) wrote:As an experienced ref myself, I appreciate just how difficult interpreting laws like this can be. My first very strong instinct was the the officials got this wrong.
All the debate got me thinking again and I would now accept there is a case for accepting that a defender just off the pitch can be considered still active and thereby playing the attacker on (technically, looking at the wording of the law, as long as they are nearer the goal line than the attacker in question - as was the case last night)

However, I would only accept this if the defender was on his feet and looking to stay off the pitch in the hope of an offside decision. The defender in this case had been clattered and was on his back several yards from the line.
Had I been reffing this situation, I would have deemed him out of the play - not allowed him back on the pitch until I waved him on - and disallowed the goal for offside, rewarding the defenders that were still active and cleared their lines so effectively to catch the attacker offside.
Come on Hackett - surely this is the right combination of technical interpretatuion and common sense that is required - is it not?"



1) And oh yeah, a player injured who left the field CANNOT come back onto the field - the referee MUST wave him on for him to do so.

2) What was Panucci supposed to do?

If he (theoretically) lay there for 10 minutes, would he be playing ANY dutch attacker and EVERY dutch attack onside for the next 10 minutes?

Just LOL, people.

3) Just because UEFA pulled an obscure rule CLARIFICATION, unknown by EVERY REF, to COVER ITS ASS, everybody immediately starts to nod their heads stupidly and herd instinct takes over.

NO REF KNEW ABOUT THIS RULE CLARIFICATION - it is NOT an actual law of the game.

[forza_azzurri]

Maybe a multimillionaire professional soccer player should perhaps know the rules of his own profession.

Only if I get to wack you in the head and then force you to get up.

Can I do this please so you can prove your idiotic point ??:eek:


Everybody forgot to mention that even Ruud thought he was offside. He kept looking back to see if the flag was going to go up.

Let's face it....nobody on the pitch new that rule existed .

[code1390]

A
1) And oh yeah, a player injured who left the field CANNOT come back onto the field - the referee MUST wave him on for him to do so.

Correct. But he didn't need it since the motion of play carried him out.
2) What was Panucci supposed to do?

If he (theoretically) lay there for 10 minutes, would he be playing ANY dutch attacker and EVERY dutch attack onside for the next 10 minutes?

Yes.

3) Just because UEFA pulled an obscure rule CLARIFICATION, unknown by EVERY REF, to COVER ITS ASS, everybody immediately starts to nod their heads stupidly and herd instinct takes over.

NO REF KNEW ABOUT THIS RULE CLARIFICATION - it is NOT an actual law of the game.

The player was still active. The ref did not give him permission to leave the field. Deal with it. It was a goal. Sorry, but I trust the judgment of a FIFA ref and the UEFA Sec. Gen. over some ref on BBC.

Replies in bold.

[Nesto]

Again, he was offside.

Post from another forum, on BBC:

" At 12:58 pm (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/euro2008/2008/06/you_are_the_ref_special.html#comment41) on 10 Jun 2008, HereComeTheFleet (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/profile?userid=2406655) wrote:As an experienced ref myself, I appreciate just how difficult interpreting laws like this can be. My first very strong instinct was the the officials got this wrong.
All the debate got me thinking again and I would now accept there is a case for accepting that a defender just off the pitch can be considered still active and thereby playing the attacker on (technically, looking at the wording of the law, as long as they are nearer the goal line than the attacker in question - as was the case last night)

However, I would only accept this if the defender was on his feet and looking to stay off the pitch in the hope of an offside decision. The defender in this case had been clattered and was on his back several yards from the line.
Had I been reffing this situation, I would have deemed him out of the play - not allowed him back on the pitch until I waved him on - and disallowed the goal for offside, rewarding the defenders that were still active and cleared their lines so effectively to catch the attacker offside.
Come on Hackett - surely this is the right combination of technical interpretatuion and common sense that is required - is it not?"



1) And oh yeah, a player injured who left the field CANNOT come back onto the field - the referee MUST wave him on for him to do so.

2) What was Panucci supposed to do?

If he (theoretically) lay there for 10 minutes, would he be playing ANY dutch attacker and EVERY dutch attack onside for the next 10 minutes?

Just LOL, people.

3) Just because UEFA pulled an obscure rule CLARIFICATION, unknown by EVERY REF, to COVER ITS ASS, everybody immediately starts to nod their heads stupidly and herd instinct takes over.

NO REF KNEW ABOUT THIS RULE CLARIFICATION - it is NOT an actual law of the game.
Sorry, this is obviously from a pretty rookie ref. Nearly all refs I know do understand this interpretation and would have made the same call.

[mplsTOON]

From watching the replay again and again, he wasnt knocked out, and wasnt hurt that bad. This time it bit him in the ass.

Honestly, From watching professionals some times, I have seen more toughness and grit in Sunday adult rec leagues.

And that goes for alot fo teams, not just the italian player in this case.

My quibble is with the basic argument of proveablity versus perception. Wether or not he was acting or really hurt and the proveability of both.

You have no way to prove he was acting, other than your speculation that: "It wasn't that bad a collision" and because he is Italian and did not display "enough toughness and grit" for your taste.

But you can prove thru simple physics that the difference between Buffon's mass and momentum and Panucci's mass and momentum would have easily have knocked Panucci into next week. In fact its more probable, because of the simple physics of it, that he was not acting.

Back to the topic: Had Buffon's momentum vector thru air full tilt been off by a few inches, he would not have intersected Pannucci's momentum vector and knocked down Pannucci. Pannucci's collison had nothing to prevent RVN from scoring, nor was he in a psotion to put RVN offside.

[1shot1kill]

It is not a surprise that the players did not know, the rule is still pretty new and situations like these do not happen often. It was put in place so players can not abuse the previous rule which allowed them to put a player offside by getting outside the lines.

The fact remains that the referee did know the rules from A to Z and made the correct call, as confirmed by the UEFA (http://en.euro2008.uefa.com/news/kind=1/newsid=711341.html#uefa+supports+dutch+goal+decision).