View Full Version : Ruud goal: Onside or Offside
The Biscuitman
11 Jun 2008, 05:24 AM
NO REF KNEW ABOUT THIS RULE CLARIFICATION - it is NOT an actual law of the game.
incorrect. One of my closest friends is an official at a very high level here in England. I spoke to him that evening about the incident and he confirmed that it was correctly given. Said this was raised in a seminar the previous summer.
Amsteldam
11 Jun 2008, 08:57 AM
Again, he was offside.
Post from another forum, on BBC:
Well if some guy posted it on a BBC public forum, then it must be true
AFCA
11 Jun 2008, 09:16 AM
I can't believe people are still discussing this. Then again, I have heared people question molecules as well as the fact that the earth is round (a bit flat on the Poles, okay)
Amsteldam
11 Jun 2008, 09:45 AM
I can't believe people are still discussing this. Then again, I have heared people question molecules as well as the fact that the earth is round (a bit flat on the Poles, okay)
You just offended all Polish people
Cris 09
11 Jun 2008, 09:56 AM
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.
It doesn't matter...he was off the line without the refs permission and didn't need to get the refs permission to come back on either...technically, still active!
Game play stops when the ball is off the pitch, not a player! So acting or not is irrelevant here.
Funny how the English commentator didn't see it this way nor did the 3 panel members from my sports provider.
Julie Frodo or Foudy or whatever her name is doesn't know what the hell she is talking about!!! You should stop listening and repeating her words on a football forum.
Khaloisha
11 Jun 2008, 10:05 AM
I like the fact that even Scolari and Lo(umlaut)w said that this is absurd.
I'm sure in one thing: if it was us to score like this, we would have called bastard cheats for I don't know how many years. Like the penalty against Australia. :rolleyes:
AFCA
11 Jun 2008, 12:43 PM
You just offended all Polish people
They have Beenhakker for coach, I assume they're not offended easily ;)
Cris 09
11 Jun 2008, 01:04 PM
They'll have your head!! ;)
Grah
12 Jun 2008, 02:38 PM
Well what a great visual lesson for all off us.
From Now on Every Ref in Every Land will make the correct call every time.
( If only eh guys )
Cris 09
12 Jun 2008, 02:40 PM
It was not offsides!
Thread Closed!
timotheus
13 Jun 2008, 06:30 PM
Yes. It. Was.
seadondo
13 Jun 2008, 06:39 PM
Yes. It. Was.
How? Explain yourself!
Tetsuo
13 Jun 2008, 06:42 PM
what's the point of this discusion now? the tuesday matches are the most important things. italy, romania and france could qualify. it will be some intense matches.
nlsanand
16 Jun 2008, 12:20 AM
The reason it's offside is that if the rule continues to be interpreted the way the ref interpreted it, it would provide no incentive to a player to leave the field of play when injured (the player was injured).
1shot1kill
16 Jun 2008, 12:26 AM
The player was not injured, heck he was laying there looking how the ball went in the net and the moment it was in the net nothing was wrong with him all of a sudden and he was appealing for offside. He chose to not stand up and get back on the pitch right away and his team paid for it.
The rule states that a defender can not remove himself from the game unless he has permission from the referee, which he had not. Also he was pushed out of the pitch by his own goalkeeper, why should Holland be punished by the goal not counting for something the Italian keeper did?
Cris 09
16 Jun 2008, 12:38 AM
The reason it's offside is that if the rule continues to be interpreted the way the ref interpreted it, it would provide no incentive to a player to leave the field of play when injured (the player was injured).
Define 'injured'.
Being pushed and therefore falling and being injured are two very very different things.
glennaldo_sf
16 Jun 2008, 05:47 AM
he was pushed out of the pitch by his own goalkeeper, why should Holland be punished by the goal not counting for something the Italian keeper did?
So what's that then..... It should have been a goal, a penalty and a red card for Buffon then!
:D
DaveyGorgeous
16 Jun 2008, 10:51 PM
Whooooo cares anyymoooreeeee
:p
I think the rule should be modified to include fouling/injuring an opposing player and causing him to either go out of bounds or having it happen while out of bounds. In this case, Buffon sent Panucci flying, so by this it can go either way. It's a cheap rule if a player is seriously injured though, and maybe out of fair play the opposing team should stop play but in this case everything happened very quickly.
Amsteldam
16 Jun 2008, 11:19 PM
I think the rule should be modified to include fouling/injuring an opposing player and causing him to either go out of bounds or having it happen while out of bounds. In this case, Buffon sent Panucci flying, so by this it can go either way. It's a cheap rule if a player is seriously injured though, and maybe out of fair play the opposing team should stop play but in this case everything happened very quickly.
Wont work FNU, cause players will fake injuries just to get goals disallowed