- 10 Jun 08, 12:03 PM
Monday's Euro 2008 game between the Netherlands and Italy prompted a huge debate about whether Ruud van Nistelrooy's goal should have counted.
Here's your chance to decide what to do...
The scenario - as described by migsthemerciless
Holland are playing Italy in the group stages. The ball is crossed into the Italian penalty area and Gianluigi Buffon parries it weakly away. In clearing the ball, Buffon clatters into Christian Panucci, knocking his own player behind the goal line, injured.
Wesley Sneijder picks up the loose ball and fires in a left footed shot. Van Nistelrooy, clearly ahead of all defenders on the pitch (except the goalkeeper Buffon), taps Sneijder's shot into the net.
Van Nistelrooy looks sheepish, convinced he should be offside, but quickly starts celebrating. What do you do?
To see the video of the incident and read the full story click here.
Keith Hackett's answer
This is a really good talking point. I have listened to the commentators criticising the first Holland goal stating that Van Nistelrooy was offside. Panucci went off through contact with his own goalkeeper Buffon and so he is still considered part of the game.
TV slated the decision but the fact is the assistant referee was correct because the defender who slid off the field is still regarded as active.
But what would you have done?
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
In the heat of battle, I was surprised it was allowed.
I can see the arguments for it standing now tho'
From the Dutch point-of-view, it was great! :-D
The Dutch commentators ended their half-time discussion on it with a cavalcade of smirking
B-)
Complain about this comment
Rules are rules.
Anyone who disagrees with this goal either:
- Didn't notice Panucci behind the goal.
- Does not know of the rule.
- Calls the rule itself "stupid".
The first two are somewhat fair - the person simply does not know better and can be suitably informed - but the last is somewhat comedic.
Which is where we are with this debate.
Complain about this comment
I have to admit I had not heard this element of the offside rule before and I did not notice Panucci behind the goal line (which I don't think any of the pundits or commentators did last night either).
I think Mr Hackett's verdict pretty much wraps it up.
P.S. I am informed that in hockey you can step behind the goal line and play someone offside. Is this true?
Complain about this comment
I really hope this was a genuine piece of fantastic refereeing and that all the commentators ,pundits ,etc will now give the referees a little more respect for how they manage a difficult and fast sport.Especially as not one commentator or pundit mentioned the law stated by the Austrian referee chief even after many viewings of the replay
Complain about this comment
Here's the official rule:
"A player is in an offside position if he is nearer to his opponents? goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent."
It doesn't mention anything about being on the pitch, only nearer the line. Panucci was closer to the line than Van Nistelrooy so he is onside and the goal stands.
However, I think the rule should be changed.
Complain about this comment
there is no offside rule in hockey.
I won't claim to be an expert on the rule, but surely if a player was active in the game since the last break of play, they should remain "part of the game" until the next break of play
Complain about this comment
Well. There you go. I didn't know that - everyday's a school day!
Makes sense I suppose, if he doesn't need the refs permission to go back on the pitch then he's still actively in play.
I assume the linesman knew it which is why he let it stand. But judging by the reactions, none of the players - Dutch or Italian - were familiar with that particular nuance!
Complain about this comment
This is just stupid and the Refs and Uefa covering there backs.....
If the player is off the pitch he needs the Referee to wave him back on so can he possibly playing someone onside....and why doesn't it work the other way wth forwards who are off the pitch.....just a joke.....Well done Uefa and all other governing bodies conrtinue to make up the rule as you go along......and never admit a mistake.....
Complain about this comment
4. Strummer wrote:
I really hope this ... will now give the referees a little more respect for how they manage a difficult and fast sport.
------------
Not likely, unfortunately. When it comes to tough refereeing decisions there seems to be only "wrong" and "not wrong". For a referee to be considered "right" by the general media would be a miracle.
Match of the Day is the worst perpetrator of this in recent times - Anyone remember the 2-2 draw between Arsenal and Manchester United early on in the season, with Gallas' "controversial" equaliser? After the MOTD pundits explained that one, they went as far as to actively discourage praising the excellent refereeing. Why?
Complain about this comment
I couldn't believe that not one of the commentators or pundits raised thepoint that Panucci payed van Nistelrooy onside. Even if they did not fully know the rule, surely this would enter into your head?
I believe this is a perfectly valid rule as it would stop any shennanigans of people running out of play to stay onside/ play and offside trap. Just imagine a winger hiding down by the corner flag, just outside the sideline until the ball was pumped forward. The offside rule would turn into even more of a farce than it is now.
Complain about this comment
Fair enough that in the rules of the game the goal should stand, but here are a couple of incidents which both support it and go against it:
1 - Since a player who goes off the pitch during play can come straight back on (without the referee calling them back on) then it is fair enough that he is active and therefore playing the player onside, however:
2 - I may be wrong but I've seen matches where a striker runs upfield, the keeper clears that ball and a new attack builds up and so the original striker stays off the pitch by the by line so that he is not active and flagged offside when the ball comes forward again (therefore not involved with play)
Possibly contradicting views here...or more than likely...I'm just wrong!!!
Complain about this comment
I am losing faith in this sport. This was cleary an offside. The offside rule was originally devised to ensure a gentlemanly game by denying the attacking side an unfair advantage through the long balls that bypassed the entire field. I see nothing gentlemanly about counting a player laying on the field as an active defender. The referee can and should use discretion to identify him as a passive defender. He is out of the field for heavens sake.
Complain about this comment
I learned the law that a player off the pitch is not considered to be playing any attacking player onside. I have checked the FIFA website and laws of the game and could find no reference to this situation. I assume it is an interpretation arrived at during one of those secret FIFA meetings where they tinker with the rules of our game. Nevertheless, I am very happy the Dutch thumped Italy. They have gotten away with too much for too long and it will be a pleasure to see them out of the tournament at the first round.
Complain about this comment
Seeing as play had not been stopped for the injury, I would have regarded Panucci as still active.
And hence I'd have said he was onside. It's unfortunate for Italy, but thats how it is.
The Dutch reaction, i.e. looking around to see if it was allowed was the right thing to do rather than just running off celebrating. And a very good striker goal, being in the right place at the right time.
Complain about this comment
Well I`m flabbergasted! Don`t get me wrong though, seeing the Italians get punished with a shocking decision filled me with glee.
From a football point of view though, it was awful. Then to get backed up by Mr Hackett is just amazing. You`re telling me that even though the guy was off the pitch, he was active? Utter drivel. He was sat on his backside, outside of the field of play with no involvement in the game whatsoever and influenced nothing. Van Nistelmoan was clearly 2 yards offside.
Let`s see how the offence compares directly with the laws of the game........direct from the FA:
A player in an offside position (surely ON the pitch) is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by a member of his own team (no reference to whether the ball is played forwards or backwards) he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by either:
a) interfering with play
b) interfering with an opponent, or
c) gaining and advantage by being in that position.
In the Van N case, we need to look at the "when is someone NOT in an offside position" argument. At no point does the law refer to players who are not actually ON the field of play, and to consider them is ridiculous in this instance.
IMO, there is no way the referee could have overruled his linesman at that speed in the heat of the game, just for the record.
Upon reading up on the law though, it is quite clear that it should return to ANYONE being in an offside position when the ball was played i.e. has less than 2 opponents between himself and the goal line. All the modern day "interpretation" problems would be solved overnight.
Ok, soap box is now away for the day, thank you.
Essexboyee
(former referee)
Complain about this comment
Perfectly good law.
If a player could play an opponent offside by stepping off the field of play inside or at the side of his goal, then we would be forever getting players doing it!!
Did not need the ref's permission to re-enter as he had tumbled off the field.
Who is to say that he was actually injured and not just pretending.
Great decision by the ref and linesman (if he meant it!!)
Complain about this comment
I agree with Keith Hackett. The defender was not off the pitch injured, in the receiving attention meaning of injured, and had only fallen off the pitch as a result of "the game", therefore he is still part of "the game". He can get up and re-enter the game at any time without the referees permission, as he would do if he fell off the side of the pitch, therefore he is active at all times on or off the pitch. When receiving attention from a physio and requiring permission to re-enter the game he is inactive. God help us when pundits get this wrong, and even Graham Poll in the Mail.
Complain about this comment
At 1st I thought it was offside but def think it was correct decision.
Put the same incident in a different scenario last defender next to the touchline sees he is about to play attacker onside as the ball is to be played he steps off the pitch and claims offside. A ref/linesman wouldn't give offside so surely in the same kind of context Ruud was played onside last nite even if Panucci being off the pitch was no fault of his own.
Complain about this comment
Maybe it was technically correct to give the goal. All that this demonstrates is that the current offside rule is very badly drafted.
Hopefully giving the goal will be a good thing in the long run as even FIFA must now realise that this needs to be looked at again.
Complain about this comment
The rule as written is really the only workable one. Imagine if the rule were changed so that a player in this situation wasn't considered part of the play: you are inviting defenders to fall over the line and fake injury to take themselves out of a play and leave the attackers offside. If you think diving is bad now, wait until you have a rule that rewards defenders for diving too!
The referees then have to make a split-second decision over whether the player is genuinely injured/out of the play or faking to gain an advantage. Even worse, the other players on both sides have to guess which way the ref is going to rule so that the defenders can decide whether to push up and the attackers can decide whether they have to retreat with them. This is a recipe for chaos!
@allwhitekit: No, the player can return as soon as he wants, just like any other player who runs or falls over the line. He only needs the ref's permission if it was the ref who told him to leave to receive treatment. But apparently you don't understand that rule, either...
Complain about this comment
Seems fair to me. I thought that a player was not allowed to leave the field without the referee's consent, and so therefore he is still in play.
Complain about this comment
i have saw a case reguraly at Goodison Park and when Everton are attacking 1 player was off the pitch and the assistant referee gave offside so why wasn't this one same situation i think a bit of biased towards whoever plays against everton or Holland
Complain about this comment
Miralgyth, you try to make a condescending and patronising comment about this issue.
However, you might care to note that rules isn't rules because there is no such thing as a rule of football.
There are LAWS.
And actually, this eventuality is not covered in the laws, only within a FIFA Guidance to Referee's handbook.
Panucci, according to that, should be considered to be on the goal-line, therefore he and Buffon play RVN onside.
I disagree and given he was off the field of play having been injured, should not be viewed as being active and the goal should not have stood.
Complain about this comment
Those that claim that the rule is in any way clear as to what the rule says about players off the pitch affecting (or not affecting) an offside decision are talking rubbish. Law 11 is totally silent on the matter and it is therefore a question of interpretation.
See the link below:
http://www.thefa.com/NR/rdonlyres/095F9568-466D-4D71-ABF5-C1253A1C28FD/122272/FIFALaws2007_08_book.pdf
Complain about this comment
Say whatever you want about the linesmans call in this game but justice is slowly being served.
When Gross-ooo blantantly dived over Lucas Neil in Germany there wasn't much discussion about the validity of the penalty which the Spanish ref hastily gave to cover his backside for giving Materazzi an early shower.
Now that the grandma of all deceipt in football get's a call agains't them the world can't have a minute's peace.
Well i dare say stuff them, they got what they deserved and if there is still justice in the world then Azzuri should collect their laundry as i can smell a timely exit for them out of this tournament.
Hope we don't have to wait too long.
Onya Oranje!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
Blimey - I posted a 'really happened in a game I was at' scenario a couple of days ago that was just like this except in reverse.
Striker falls off pitch in scramble. Shot comes in from another player and keeper saves it. The striker rgains her feet and comes back onto the pitch and taps in rebound.
Decision on the day - GOAL as the player had not stepped off the pitch deliberately and also had not delayed her return (therefore could not disallow on that front) but also was not on the pitch therefore the goal could not be chalked off for offside.
The concencus was that the call was right.
Keith - please help - what should the decision have been? Your response to this implies "offside" but where to take the free kick from? 1 yard off the pitch?
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately, the rule says absolutely nothing about a defender being "active". Strikers can be "inactive" by standing off the field, but defenders apparently don't get this benefit (even when they're injured!).
Since Panucci went off the field on his own, then TECHNICALLY, since he could come back on whenever he wanted (the ref would only have to give permission if he'd been carried off the field), there is nothing IN THE LETTER OF THE LAW to suggest he is not active in play.
I highly doubt the linesman had this on his mind when he kept the flag down though! In that moment of play, he either didn't realise Panucci was off the field, or was just slow or incompetent. I find it hard to believe that the linesman was thinking of this technicality in allowing this goal.
It is contrary to the spirit of the law for an injured defender laying off the field to play a striker, in an otherwise off-side position, onside.
Hopefully this controversy will get FIFA to make the entire rule a little more explicit and either do away with the entire "active" rule (there by making it impossible for strikers to step off the field to avoid offside), or extend that same benefit to defenders (at least the injured ones lying off the field!).
What a circus!
Complain about this comment
Why on earth isn't the offside rule got rid of? It causes all sorts of problems and arguments, and often prevents a free-flowing game. If it went, then the two linesmen could become proper assistant referees instead of having to constantly look to see if one player has stepped in front of another. The offside rule was taken out of hockey a few years ago and it made the game quicker and much more exciting - and, no, goal-hanging is not the result - no-one can afford to leave a player doing nothing up field except waiting for a long ball which goalkeepers and defenders can normally reach - instead, the game is stretched, tactics change, and it ends up as a much faster and exciting game.
Complain about this comment
11. Shadow2198 wrote:
I may be wrong but I've seen matches where a striker runs upfield, the keeper clears that ball and a new attack builds up and so the original striker stays off the pitch by the by line so that he is not active and flagged offside when the ball comes forward again (therefore not involved with play)
------------
This one is fine so long as said striker is not involved with play while in an offside position when a pass is made. He can even return to an onside position and score legally.
This one has been a talking point in a couple Premier League games over the last few years, probably the most notable of which involving Thierry Henry.
Complain about this comment
1. I think I am right in saying a defender cannot step off the pitch to make an attacker offside - ergo whether Pannucci went off accidentally or on purpose (obviously it was the former) seems to me to be irrelevant.
2. Interesting point made above about the phrase 'nearer the goal line' - if Pannucci had slid for several yards would that have made RvN offside
3. Players in 'don't know the laws' shock - see reference to the players not knowing this particular nuance above.
4. I suggest all amateur critics enrol on a referees course (there are plenty about and you would be welcome); pass it (not necessarily easy) and then referee games. You will find you don't know the laws as well as you thought (or perhaps at all); that spotting infringements and applying the laws during a game is actually not altogether straightfoward (oh yes it is I hear you cry) and in fact those guys in the middle at the big tournaments, on the whole, tend to know what they are doing.
But then again they do sometimes make mistakes.
And so do the players
Complain about this comment
Would the goal have stood if the Panucci had fallen off the pitch after colliding with a Dutch player?
BigTonyWhite: there is no off-side rule in hockey any more
Complain about this comment
People keep on raising the point of forwards not being offside when they are off the pitch. But this is completely irrelevant. The whole point of the offside rule is to prevent 'goal hanging' not to give a defensive advantage.
Advatage is always meant to be given to attacking players. Rule 11.4.2 cleary states that it is referring to defenders. Why does there need to be parity between defenders and attackers?
The two situations are different and the decision is both correct and a very good rule.
Complain about this comment
David Taylor is WRONG and so is UEFA .
The rule he mentions is correct , though Panucci was down for about a minute !! and required attention following the collision with Buffon . So had Panucci intentionaly stepped behind the line then it would have been a fair goal , and as the rules state he should have been booked too ! BUT in this case he was down injured way before the goal was scored , hence the goal is in OFFSIDE and the Ref gets it wrong twice , as if he was in offside and behind the line on purpose he should have been booked .
So this is pathetic from UEFA in my opinion , pathetic cover up ! Typical .
This clearly compromised the game , though in football this can happen unfortunately .
Complain about this comment
Didn't Panucci carry on uninjured after going down like a sack of spuds?
The linesman was spot on. The player was still active and wouldn't have needed to be waved back onto the pitch by the ref. (If a player leaves the pitch chasing down a loose ball, and momentum carries him over the line, he doesnt need to be waved back onto the pitch.)
Complain about this comment
This is a part of football that I really love. Allowing the goal is based purely on the interpretation of Law 11. There is nothing written to cover this particular situation. When I saw the goal it never entered my mind that it may not be allowed. When everyone started debating, I couldn't believe how many people were so quick to twist the offsides rule in favor of Italy and curse the ref and his family. Just because the goalkeeper pushes the defender to the ground doesn't mean he should be inactive. He could get up at any moment to rejoin play, so how is he inactive? And it's not the same as a striker being inactive after over running the play because the defenders can't be in an offside position in this case.
Also in response to comments 3 and 6. Yes there is in fact an offsides rule in hockey and it is based on the puck crossing the attacking team's blue line before any offensive player. It does not follow defenders the goalkeeper like football. The line never moves, once the puck crosses, it's every man for himself until it leaves the zone. I'd hate to have a debate start on this goal supported by a made up ruling in hockey.
Great start to the tournament!
Complain about this comment
i meant 11.4.1
Complain about this comment
So what Keith Hackett is saying is an attacking player standing in front of a goalkeeper at free kicks, as we have seen the Premier League, is not active, but a defender that is off the pitch on the floor is?
Complain about this comment
I would have thought that because the injured defender was "inactive" and off the pitch defenders he should not be counted as a defender.
I wonder if it would have made a difference if the physio had been working on him - that would presumably made him more officially inactive?
Personally, I don't like the active/inactive change to the offside rule (which affects attackers). But if attackers are not counted if they are inactive then I'd say it should not count for defenders. But that would apprently need a change in the rules.
My vote would be to scrap the whole concept of being active when the ball is played and go back to the "simple" world of being offside or not.
Complain about this comment
The rule is common sense in that a defender could cheat by stepping off the pitch at the goal line to play an attacker offside. So deeming the defender still active if he steps off the pitch makes sense. Unless the referee acknowledges the defender is injured and therefore inactive. Likewise if a forward steps off the pitch at the goal line then he would be inactive anyway as he wasn't interferring with play unless he was obstructing the goalkeeper behind the goal line in the goal itself. It is not true that any player off the pitch needs the referee's permission to come back on the pitch, unless he is receiving treatment or assistance and therefore will be acknowledged by the referee.
Complain about this comment
I think at this stage everyone is in agreement that the goal under the current rules was totally legitimate.
It is harsh on the Italians that thair injured player who was not even on the pitch played RVN onside, but to disallow this goal would have set down an awful precedent in terms of going over your own goal line just to make the attacker offside - the reason the rule is their in the first place.
Neither the ref nor the linesman could have deemed Pannucci injured and so must conclude that the player is still active.
For RVN, he obviously thought he was offside and probably would have accepted if the goal had been disallowed because this is what he does so often; hangs around the box and strays offside.
Funny how it takes RVN's goals to make us understand the rules.
Remember his perfectly legitimate goal against Southampton all those years ago at Old Trafford?
Complain about this comment
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?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I was driving at the time and listened to the match on the good old BBC 5Live. It is annoying to say the least that the BBC commentary team laboured the point that the goal was ?clearly? offside and should have been disallowed, with the usual incredulity and the insinuation that the officials were incompetent. It wasn?t until some while later that they cared to inform the listener that there was an Italian defender beyond the goal line. Armed with this information, and without any visual confirmation, I found myself momentarily and ashamedly shouting at the radio. It was a case of yet again some football journalist, who should be fully conversant with the laws of the game (well, that?s face it, it?s very related to his job), ranting on as if they are some Know-It-All, when they clearly aren?t.
You cannot have defenders leaving the field of play, that is: go beyond the goal line in order to put the most forward striker into an offside position. Are we seriously expecting the striker to have to move back towards in his own goal to get behind the next deepest defender? Imagine the offside trap where a line of defenders move towards and beyond their own goal line to play the opposition offside. And further, in the instance from last night which I have now had an opportunity to see, the Dutch should not be penalised if Italy?s goalkeeper and defender (without any Dutch interference) cannot deal with the situation.
Both the referee and, dare I say, Keith Hackett got it right.
Now, where?s the explanation for the need for the ball to leave the penalty area in You Are The Ref #3, Mr Hackett?
Complain about this comment
Am I the only one wondering what Panucci was supposed to do in that situation, I can't think of anything. Or was it simply a no-win scenario for the Italians?
Complain about this comment
A FIFA clarification of the offside rule talks about what happens if a defender has left the field of play intentionally so that a player is left in an offside position.
If the referee deems that to have happened he's to continue play, booking the defender for unsporting behaviour.
What's interesting though is that the implication is that the player is indeed in an offside position, the referee is simply advised to overlook it.
There's no way the player left the field intentionally, so where does Keith Hackett get his guidance from regarding this point?
In my view he's in an offside position, there's no unsporting behaviour that's left him there, and he's clearly interfering with play by touching the ball. Offside!
Complain about this comment
Firstly my first impression was offside. Hands up I have to admit that.
I think, now, that this is a case where the assistant was not wrong to allow the goal, and controversially, would not have been wrong to disallow the goal.
This all comes down to interpretation of the law. Mr Hackett is speaking from discussions at the highest level of the game that are normally not public knowledge and hence we have so much opinion on the matter as no-one knows what referees are going to do when some thing is not specifically covered by law.
As for passive/active defending, there is no such thing. All defenders are active in an offside decision whether or not there are anywhere near play. Ie a right back can play an opposition right winger on side.
If Panucci was on the field of play ie had fallen on the goal line, RVN would have definitely been ONSIDE. However because he was off the field of play this comes down to interpretation of the law.
"Must be closer than the second last defender to the goal line" if you take linear distances RVN was closer just!
On the flip side though Panucci was over the goal line due to his own momentum (perfectly ok) if he had not been injured, he would then be obliged to come straight back on to the field of play and probably played RVN onside.
So unfortunately for the Italians, this goal should have stood but perhaps something needs to be done to determine whether a defender is active by mobility.
Complain about this comment
"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."
With most players in todays game taking any opportunity they can to waste a few minutes rolling around on the floor in 'agony' (even if Panucci wasn't in this case) the rule seems perfectly fine currently and would be open to much more abuse if altered.
Complain about this comment
How many times do you see a forward intentionally stay off the pitch, to take himself out of the offside equation?
In future he will be offside? I don't think so.
Powers that be are making this up as they go along.
If you'd asked the question at 19.45 yesterday I bet you'd have got a different answer!!
Complain about this comment
Ok no. 8.
You say that the player once leaving the pitch must be waved back on by the ref.
Ok, here is a situation;
A player, say C Ronaldo, runs down the wing with the ball and plays it through a defenders legs. To avoid being clattered by the defender Ronaldo leaves the field of play by stepping over the touch line. He then re-enters having avoided the defender, runs on and scores. Are you saying that this is an illegal move then. Should the ref have brought it back because he did not give Ronaldo permission to re-enter the field. The answer is no.
The same sort of situation happened with Pannucci. He did not get the ref's permission to leave the field of play and so is still active so counts. Just because he is injured makes no difference, as if he was on the field of play he would still be counted as an active player unless the ref stopped play having decided that the injurey was a serious one.
So all in all, no 8, you're wrong.
I actually don't think that the assistant made the correct call. Yes, the decision was correct, but did the assistant think through it all before it happened or did he just think that RvN was in an onside position regardless of the defender being off the field or not. I would like to think that he got it fully right, but I just can't imagine that someone could make such a well informed decision so quickly.
Complain about this comment
The goal must stand.
At the time of play, the ref can't decide straight away whether Panucci is injured, and has not authorised him to leave the pitch. Goals like this must be allowed, otherwise players would take advantage of it, and drift out of the pitch when they thought suitable.
Very good decision by the officials, especially when you consider the magnitude of the game and the pressure everyone is under.
Complain about this comment
Am I the only one wondering what Panucci was supposed to do in that situation, I can't think of anything. Or was it simply a no-win scenario for the Italians?
--------------------------------------------------------
Ticape the only thing italians could have done is marked Van Nistelrooy up instead of trying to spring the offside trap on him it wasn't entirely a lose lose situatiion.
Complain about this comment
Surley the goal has to be offside (Although I know the rule).
The Italian boy wasnt interfering with play, he was off the feild, he didnt leave the pitch intentionally, his momentum took him off with soem help from the keeper.
If an attacking player can be deemed not to be "interfering with play" why cant a deffender?
Complain about this comment
23. kd1976 wrote:
Miralgyth, you try to make a condescending and patronising comment about this issue.
However, you might care to note that rules isn't rules because there is no such thing as a rule of football. There are LAWS.
------------
And the latter isn't a condescending comment? In the context of the discussion it doesn't even matter, either.
Complain about this comment
Not really an opinion on whether he is onside or not - realy more of a secondary question . . . .
If, during an attack a player steps over the line he considered to not be interfering with play ie. not in the game - or at least he used to be . . . is this still the case ??? If it is then surely Pannucci was, by the same token, not involved in play as he wasoff the field ad therefore the goal should have been ruled offside ???
Complain about this comment
I always thought that if you were injured you could leave the pitch whilst play was ongoing as not to play opposing strikers onside.
Its always harsh when the player on the floor is counted as active. Maybe with all the advances of the offside rule there have been recently in favour of strikes they could look at altering the rule to assist defender just a little bit.
Complain about this comment
The rule is the correct one and it's a perfectly good goal. Panucci could have got up and bloked the shot at any time so of course he is an active player. The fact he is behind the line means he is treated as being on the goal line. Equally if a striker goes off the pitch and there are not 2 or more defenders on the goal line and he comes back on and scores from that position he would be offside. Why should Holland be penalised because Buffon and Panucci collided? Poor defending by Italy somebody should have stayed in and marked RvN.
Complain about this comment
If you slightly change the scenario it is clear that the decision was the right one: suppose, just before the ball is played forward to a striker the defender and goalkeeper (who are playing the striker onside) collide and both end up in the back of the net. The ball is now plyed to the striker... is he offside? No of course not. And what happened yesterday is, in fact, an almost identical situation. What this shows is the asymmetry between the role of a defender and an attacker in the offiside law. You can have an attcker not active but you can't have a defender inactive. What is depressing is that the pundits have failed to appreciate that the decision was the correct one and they have failed to appreciate what an interesting and thought-provoking scenario it was, preferring to respond with knee-jerk prejudice against referees....
PeteTommo
Complain about this comment
Football must be the only sport where the playing professionals and the professional commentators DON'T KNOW THE RULES.
The worst example is the BBC panel of ex-professional playing experts, who every week keep asking why a penalty is not given with all the pushing in the box just before a corner is taken.
'THE BALL HAS TO BE IN PLAY' to award a free kick.
Please get a book of rules between you
Complain about this comment
At the end of the day, whether panucci had a good reason to be off the field of play or not, if the goal was dissallowed it would authorise defending players in other games to exit the field of play (feigning injury)during a set-piece and play the striker off-side every time.
Complain about this comment
I cant understand how anyone can call Panucci as active when he has just collided with Buffon and is injured on the floor off the pitch. You can see that he was rolling around on the floor when Holland scored. How can this count as an active player.
Complain about this comment
I think that is ridiculous. It should be offside. He was injured.
Complain about this comment
Law 11 states that;
A player is in an offside position if:
"he is nearer to his opponents? goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent"
Go onto the FIFA and FA sites and see for yourself. Clearly applies to RVN goal.
Both mention NOTHING about a defender being off the pitch, therefore he MUST be considered out of play and therefore not active. Therefore Hackett must be wrong. If he is off the pitch through his own volition which he clearly was, i.e. lying on the floor and not immediately getting up and back on the pitch, then he should be booked for not seeking permission to leave the field of play (law 12 - cautionable offence #7) unless injured (in which case he CANNOT be active).
As stated above, he can also commit an offence if he rejoined play on the pitch without the referee's permission.
Similarly if the rule is interpreted in this way with a defender then it must also be interpreted in this way if an attacker is off the pitch at the other in the reverse situation.
This smacks of referees making up the interpretation of a an ill-defined law just to cover up their official's mistakes. This law badly needs redefining so it's water tight in order for referees, linesmen, footballers, managers and those watching know exactly where they stand.
15 seconds after the goal went in we saw it on the telly so why can't they just use a the 4th official to make a judgement like they do in cricket for run outs?
Complain about this comment
My brother was in Switzerland and even before half time the Swiss commentators had already dug up the rule that confirmed the goal's validity. According to La Repubblica ironically, a while ago a similar goal in serie A was wrongly disallowed. In general the Italian press are very graceful in defeat, and don't bang on about gross injustice as much as some other cultures would... Any way, only the most miserable of misanthropes would judge an otherwise entertaining game by this fluke.
Complain about this comment
A player is in an offside position if:
he is nearer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent
A player is not in an offside position if:
he is in his own half of the field of play
he is level with the second last opponent
he is level with the last two opponents
Thats the rule
Complain about this comment
If professional footballers didn't cheat ( or encouraged by their managers to cheat ) the referees job would be easier. What if the defender had gone down in the goal net not to the side of it... I think he would have made an effort to stop the goal even if he was on the deck. Also who is to say he wasn't badly hurt but because of his lack of knowledge of the laws of the game thought by remaining off the field he would be playing the forwards offside. As the camera followed the goal celebrations did anyone see if he received treatment or did he get up showing no ill effects of the challenge.
Complain about this comment
It seems a highly pedantic rule but if it is in the rule book the goal stands.....however I'm sure I've also heard that entering or leaving the field of play without the referees permission officially warrants a yellow card so if the call is the player off the field of play means the goal stands he should surely deserve a yellow card. Thats if we are playing by the pedantic rules of course.
Complain about this comment
i dont know exactly what the rule is. However it shouldnt be up for discussion. The rules are rules end of!
Complain about this comment
Last night, live, it looked liked another typical van Nistelrooy poacher's goal but in the photo it looks as if two Dutch players (v.N. and Schneijder?) are well offside.
I thought it was only given as offside if the defender (in this case the unfortunate Panucci) was interfering with play. The poor blighter was spark out by the looks of things and couldn't have interfered with anything. Or have they changed the rule yet again? I could never be a referee!
The third goal was surely an own goal (the luckless Panucci again?) but the result was right and I don't expect van Bronckhorst will be a contender for the Golden Boot so it shouldn't matter.
Complain about this comment
well...a classic catch 22.
and as i understand it...
the defender appeared to go down injured, however there was no stoppage in play and seeing as the referee had not declared him out of play (to receive treatment) i think the correct decision was made.
in all honestly that was a very quick conclusion that the officials made, and that is excatly what the sport needs; it needs to be fast flowing. players all to often look for opportunities to stop the game, and arguably at international level the games is fast losing its fluidity with the exception of the game in question.
and i would suggest "PeteTommo" himself maybe be an official, and he inderstands the law like i do. i would also say that the 'knee-jerk' responses to any seemingly controversial referee decisions is becoming stale, unnecessary and ultimately pointless. unless it is a matter of dsicipline decisions will not be reversed.
overall though, i think that the incident in question is one of those rare footballing occurences that make the game interesting; but i think we all feel a degree of sympathy for the italians, buffon in particular as he has often pointed out he himself is the world's best...
Complain about this comment
Take 100 assistant referees and put them, hypothetically, in that situation. What percentage of them do you think would have kept their flag down?
Complain about this comment
While I agree that these are the laws of the game, I disagree with Miraglyth who criticises people for saying the law is stupid. To a certain extent, they are right...
Bearing in mind the amount of goals we have seen given where a player is in a clearly offside position, sometimes in front of the goal or goalkeeper but not making any contact, and yet ruled to be inactive, yet a player lying off the pitch is deemed to be active, I think you can see why some people would be frustrated.
There certain needs to be some re-education and consistency behind all the offside laws, especially as, if Hackett states, players don't even know the law...
Complain about this comment
63. Cruijffie wrote:
Any way, only the most miserable of misanthropes would judge an otherwise entertaining game by this fluke.
------------
I don't think this blog entry or its comments are about the game itself. It's just one part of a game that has provided a great conversation topic.
Complain about this comment
The ref said it was a goal; FIFA have confirmed that it was a goal.
So I guess that it must have been a goal.
However farcical (or otherwise) this law is, I think we should be grateful that this situation arose in a 3-0 Group match, rtaher than as the only goal in a World Cup Final.
Complain about this comment
It had to be offside in my view, as Panucci out the field of play, and therefore, couldn't interfere with an offside decision.
He wasn't in the goal, as opposed to lying on the ground beside it. If he was injuried, which it looked like he was, then why didn't the referee stop the game to attend to him, as it also seemed to be a head injury, in which should immediately stop?
Complain about this comment
Two points.
1) If pannuci had not rolled theatrically out of the field of play there would be no debate.
2)There is no provision for a defender to be inactive.
Frankly if this incident stops defenders lying down for a rest to get the game stopped to allow them to reorganise at the merest touch from another player so much the better.
Complain about this comment
With the laws of the game as they are, then the goal stands and all credit to the officials. In the heat of the moment I would have blown for offside as I wasn't aware this rule existed and indeed I think the law, with hindsight, needs to be reviewed.
I hope the ITV commentators public apologise the slating of the referee.
Complain about this comment
The goal was perfectly legitimate
The players at fault and who should take full responsibility for the goal were the defenders who ran out trying to play Van Nistelrooy offside when they clearly knew one of their players was on the floor thus playing everyone onside. Buffon should also take some of the blame for not communicating properly which led to the shambles at the back.
Complain about this comment
I am all in favour of the rules favouring the attacking side. There were 2 Italians ahead of Van Nistelrooy, the goalkeeper and the defender behind the goalline so the goal should stand and a good thing too, in my opinion
Complain about this comment
I would have give it as there was an Italian player off the pitch due to the build up. Come o the Dutch
Complain about this comment
Whatever the rule is the decision to allow this goal was against the spirit of fair play. Panucci was off the pitch injured. He did not deliberately step off the pitch to place RVN in an offside position and in fact his team were at a disadvantage because they were playing, or so they thought, with 10 men.
It's time for refs and those in charge to apply some common sense. If the offside law is so complicated that it's only after the match is over that the majority of us learn that under the existing law this was a valid goal then it needs changing.
How would those agreeing with this decision like it if the next instance saw their team conceding in this unfair manner?
Complain about this comment
If the ref did not acknowledge an injury (such as wave off a player for treatment) then surely he does not have to wave a player back on. And so Panucci going down off the pitch constitutes nothing more than an action within an active game. And so he is still active.
If we take the defender out of the equation, which so many people seem to be doing, then yes, RVN was clearly offside. However, the point here is whether or not the defender off the pitch is playing him on.
Yes he was, good decision. Goal.
Complain about this comment
While I agree that the rule is somewhat of a grey area (I was convinced that RVN was offside as the Italian was off the field) I CAN see the logic of the interpretation. Remember that a player can only leave the field of play with the referees permission, and thus requires permission to return. In the case of Panucci, he didn't get permission to leave and so should still be considered active. If he left (or returned), without permission it's a booking which would clearly be ridiculous in this case. A winger who knocks the ball down the line and then run into and back out of touch to collect it is always considered active. A striker is not allowed to stand behind the goal line to avoid being called offisde then step back onto the pitch to collect the ball.
The interpretation of this rule for defenders was implemented to stop defenders stepping off the pitch to catch an attacker offside.
I still sympathise with the Italians, but unless the referees are told to further interpret this law by determining if the defender left the pitch on puropse hoping to gain an advantage then there's nothing else to be done. This would be a sensible option as at the moment it seems that the ref has to decide whether an attacker is 'acive' or 'passive', but can't make that distinction for the defender (has he stepped off the field of play to gain an advantage, or has he been knocked off the field by his own keeper and is writhing in agony 5 yards behind the goal). A note of clarification from FIFA after the tournament would be useful......
Complain about this comment
It's irrelevant of whether the defender is active, you have to look at this from whether the player was active. In which case he was.
An inactive player in regards to the whole match is, perhaps, one receiving acknowledged (by the ref/officials) treatment off the pitch. Surely anyone else, until play is stopped by the ref, is classed as active?
Complain about this comment
There is no such thing as activ and unactiv defender in UEFA's rules
Complain about this comment
I think this slightly obscure aspect of the off-side rule is being used to cover up the referee and assistants gaffe.
The spirit of the law is to penalise defenders deliberately stepping off the pitch in or to create and off-side position, or who finding themselves off the pitch delay return for the same reason.
This was a player finding himself off the pitch through activity of the game and who had no chance to return before the goal went in.
In that case the official's interpretation is probably outside the intent of the rule and wrong on that count - even if he was really thinking that which I frankly doubt.
This is a nice way of getting him off the hook.
Complain about this comment
I accept the decision was made correctly within the laws of the game as KH stated above, but surely if an attacking player can be innactive when he is on the pitch, how can a defender be Active off the pitch???!
The law seems ridiculus compared to all the 'interpretation' changes over the last two seasons over when a player is active!
Complain about this comment
My son, who didn't watch the entire match, happened to see when the first goal was scored, and said Van Nistelrooy appeared to be offside.
I reminded him of the player who had collided with Buffon and wondered if he was still on the goal line and if this would have had an impact on Van Nistelrooy's not being ruled offside.
Of course I didn't know of article 11.4.1. of the refereeing code at the time.
Later when I saw the sports item quoting the Austrian referee commissioner, I felt a sense of relief.
Complain about this comment
I think the decision was both correct and logical. Shrekels (6) and GargoyleWaiting (7) explained it well.
The defender was only off the pitch temporarily during the course of continuing play. There had been no stoppage of play and he had not left the pitch with the ref.s permission. Therefore he was still on the field of play and involved in the game. He did not need the ref.s permission to return to the pitch and the situation was exactly the same as if he had been lying injured just inside the goal line.
As to the players not knowing the rules I would say that if the ref has read the law book once it's one more time than the large majority of the players
Complain about this comment
I knew he was onside when I saw panucci behind the goal line and thought it was the right decision because otherwise that would allow defenders to walk off the field of play behind the goal to make attackers offside, creating a loop hole...
Complain about this comment
I must say I had absolutely no idea that the rule existed but as it does its a quite brilliant piece of refereeing.
As it a rule even if a slightly stupid and hereto completely unknown one he, was spot on so you have to hand it to him.
Complain about this comment
Although it seemed unfair at the time, in the cold light of day the rules do make sense. Without this rule a defender could just step out of play in order to make an attacker offside.
Complain about this comment
71. siebarlow wrote:
Bearing in mind the amount of goals we have seen given where a player is in a clearly offside position, sometimes in front of the goal or goalkeeper but not making any contact, and yet ruled to be inactive, yet a player lying off the pitch is deemed to be active, I think you can see why some people would be frustrated.
------------
I can understand the overall frustration, but not that people are calling "double standards" on the law.
Offside by its very nature does not apply equally to the attacking side and the defending side - that is, it can never result in the attacking team getting a free kick.
That it does not have the same corollaries (i.e. "inactivity" of attackers only) follows logically.
Complain about this comment
Whether the goal should have stood is largely irrelevant. The lineman can take no credit because he did not allow it to stand because of that - he just thought van Nistelrooywas level with the last defender.
Complain about this comment
Playing Devil's Advocate to Keith Hackett's comments, I pose the following to him :- When an injured player is outside the field of play on the touchline and is being treated, is he or she still considered to part of the team ?
Complain about this comment
yes
Complain about this comment
Some of the confusion arises romthe fact that an Attacker can take himself off the pitch so as not to be active or interfering with play and hence not cause his team to be offside.
A defender cannot make himself in active inorder to play someone offside.
Someone mentioned Hockey - the offside rule (which used to only operate in the last quarter of the field) was abolished completely some years ago to great success. Too many games of football are played in a scrappy manner in a compressed middle third due to teams playing a "high offside line". Hockey is now much more spread out and a better game to play watch and umpire because of it.
Complain about this comment
Looking at the replay again it is clear that the rule itself is not understood and this would explain where the problems arise. The first point is if the Italian defenders knew the rule then why did they push upleaving VnR open and able to score. The second point is in the wording of the rule which states that if a player deliberately steps off the field to try and cause the player to be offside he should be booked and the goal stands. it is clear that Panucci did not try to make VnR offside by steeping out but was down facing the other way with no idea what was going on. The thrid point is this as Pannuci was not booked and the goal stood that the referee did not notice that Panucci had left the field without permission needing treatment this implies that the goal stood not due to the defender off the field but because of the linemen juding the line of defenders was in line with VnR which would be a mistake. The rule is a grey area and needs to be reworded and looked at so it is understood by everyone.
Complain about this comment
I am confused as to what exactly constitutes being active when outside the field itself. In Austria-Croatia, Pogatetz was clearly holding Modric, but they were both off the field. The lineman put his flag up the very moment Modric re-entered the field. I know it was a different lineman than last night, but even then I started wondering about this. It obviously was not as decisive as allowing this goal, but the question stands. Can you be fouled when outside the field of play? Can you foul when outside the field of play? In that case, Pogatetz would have arguable had to be booked and sent off. Anybody, any ideas?
Complain about this comment
It is all very well for Keith Hackett to claim that Panucci remained "active" after sliding off the pitch, but would he care to quote the relevant law?
Law 11 appears to be quite clear in requiring the act of leaving the pitch to be deliberate for a goal to stand under such circumstances, which was hardly the case last night.
The same law also requires the referee to caution the defender for leaving in the pitch without permission, so the match referee was wrong either way.
If the defender's act was deliberate, it was a goal and a yellow card. If it was not deliberate, van Nistelrooy was offside.
Complain about this comment
In view of all the conflicting views,if the goal was allowed to stand because the player off the field was classed as active,can anyone explain the incident a few years ago when Dion Dublin I think it was came from behind the goal and nicked away,the ball from the goalkeeper who was rolling out the ball.Surely then Dublin came from an offside positon,as there was no other defender between him and the goal,His goal was allowed.
Complain about this comment
Had it been given offiside and if Netherlands complained, I am sure UEFA would have come and saved the referee by saying panucci was no where trying to take an advantage by being behind the line. In any case UEFA would have tried to save the referee by creating own logic.
Complain about this comment
no one passed dion dublin the ball...
Complain about this comment
Does this mean that if Panucci was behind the goal and was there because of an injury sustained without contact with Buffon or any other Italian player he would not have been active?
It was always my understanding that if you were off the field of play you were inactive.
Complain about this comment
94, Ulsterman.
This is not the case because, if the player is receiving treatment then the referee must have allowed the treatment to occur. This means that the player is classes as off the field of play and is, therefore, not active. If the referee did not authorise the treatment, well he would have to be deemed as still active, but I don't think that would be the case in a real situation.
Complain about this comment
I think FIFA are using this obscure interpretation of the rule to justify a mistake by the linesman. What if Panucci had been put out of play via an accidental collision with a Dutch player, not deemed a foul? Would he still have been considered to have stepped off the pitch without permission?
The most telling thing in all this is the reaction of the Dutch players who could not believe a goal had been awarded, particularly RVN who knew he was offside.
I never thought I would be so sympathetic toward Italian defenders but this decision is a travesty and is not in the spirit of the game.
Complain about this comment
O.k so the player as left the field of play intentionally or non intentionally.Now when the ball leaves the field of play its not live,so you can pick it up and whatever.
What happens say for instance that RVN
missed that tap in last night and it goes wide striking the defender on the hand as it goes off.Does this mean its a penalty?
I think not.I was led to believe that the football pitch including the the area behind the goal line were active areas and once the ball left the field of play in anything other than these areas then it is a dead ball situation i.e throw in etc,this must count for players as well.Panucci never left the field intentionally and was clobbered by his goalkeeper,this to me means offside anything else and fifa,uefa the fa will make the offside rule even more complicated than it already is.The linesman got it wrong and keith hackett got it wrong.Only plus side is that it did not ruin the game and it was not decided by the one goal.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Maybe I am being cynical but I just think it was easier for Uefa to come out and say "the goal was correct to stand" than the ref's got it wrong on the biggest stage in European Football.
They need to start using some common sense, if I?m a defender and I get hurt and I cannot continue to play - then what am I supposed to do? Now even if I go off the field and out of the way, I'm still considered active!
I love the way they say not many people know this interpretation! That?s because they just made it up, to make the referee's job's even more impossible.
I wish a top referee would come out and say that they are fed up with it - maybe then we could get it sorted.
Complain about this comment
technically = goal
morally = farce
rvn = bogliner
Complain about this comment
I'm dismayed by the posters who acknowledge that the correct decision was given but then insist that the assistant must have got it right by accident because it's 'not possible' for someone to think that fast.
Referees and assistants have to think that fast in several situations in every game. This was a particularly unusual situation and HUGE respect to the officials for getting it bang-on correct. Why is it so impossible to actually give credit where it is clearly due.
A couple of posters have made the connection between the point at which the defender would be in a position to have to ask permission to come back on, and whether he is therefore having an effect on the offside decision.
That is, in my opinion, exactly the nub of this situation. He could have jumped up and come straight back on, so counted as if he were on the goal-line.
Had the ball been cleared, and a moment later Holland come back on the attack with the defender still off the field and receiving treatment, the same situation would have resulted in offside being given.
SteveWren (Post 26) - a really good twist on this. Forward left the field accidentally, ball played forward, forward comes back on and scores. Based on the clarifications that have been made around this Holland/Italy situation, I think it's fairly clear that the officials in your game were incorrect and the forward should have been judged as if still on the field (ie on the goal line) and so offside.
Complain about this comment
An "inactive" defender doesn't have the same status as an "inactive" attacker. So if a defender is down injured ON the field, he can still play an attacker on-side despite being in-active.
If this rule is wrong, then how much of the defender needs to be off the pitch for him to be deemd not playing the attacker on-side? 100% off the pitch? What if his hair is on the line, and the rest of him not?
My first thought was "on-side" and could not believe that the Italian defenders tried to play "Fergie's "Rock"" offside. I then spent the rest of the game shouting at the pundits for being so well paid while not knowing the rules, or even that the defender might just be involved somehow.
Complain about this comment
It must have been offside because the ITV pundits said it was, and surely they would know the rules of football as well as having an in-depth knowledge of playing style and tactics before appearing in front of us to educate us in the fine art of association football. In exactly the same way as the two Alans, Mark and Gary have their finger on the pulse of world football, and understand implicitly the tactics and the style that England must adopt in order to win a major summer tournament. Or as Gary put it. "If Greece can win it then surely we can".
I'm not keen on the arguement about "Attackers aren't interfering out wide so why are the defenders ?". It's about time the benefit of the doubt for off-side went with the attacking side. I pay my money to see goals, not 4 automatons step 2 paces forward in unison and put their arms in the air.
Complain about this comment
"A player is in an offside position if he is nearer to his opponents? goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent."
So does that mean that if Panucci had crawled sufficiently far off the pitch then he'd then be further away from his goal line than Van Nistelroy, then playing him offside?
Now THAT would be an amusing interpretation, and we see more defenders charging away from the field of play, down the tunnel and out of the ground to play any potential striker off-side...
Complain about this comment
Do remember Mick McGrath standing behind the goal-line trying to claim Wolves player was offside in Cup Final being ignored so was not surprised that technically Van Nistelrooy was onside. Do believe though this particular decision was more good luck than management. Don't think the linesman even considered the Italian behind the goal. The referees and officials will always find ways of justifying themselves. Today all in power have no integrity. Why not just admit an error occured which turned out alright !
Complain about this comment
If the defender had been only just off the pitch, and The Rock had taken a couple of touches, no-one would have complained if the defender had come back on and tackled him, so why the controversy? Defenders in those situations don't need to ask permission to return, as he's clearly gone off by accident. How about if a winger pushes the ball past a defender on the flank and steps off the pitch to avoid colliding with him? He doesn't have to get a wave from the ref.
Complain about this comment
Never mind what the idiots are saying to try and justify the bad decision and calm things down.
Anyone who loves the game knows that the goal should not have stood. Panucci was out of the game and was clearly of the pitch with no intention of trying to play some kind of crafty offside trick.
The decision was WRONG full stop and it had a major impact on the game as Italy were then forced to attack.
In the heat of a fast paced, high profile match officials are bound to make mistakes and this clearly was just a mistake, it happens, its football.
However dont go and try and cover things up by manipulating the rule book.
There are more football lovers who would agree with me rather than disagree, am I right?
Complain about this comment
I think an interesting point has been made in regards to strikers from the offside rule if an attacker goes out of play accident and raises his arms he is inactive and therefore not offside. This means that if the goalie controls it in the box the striker can run up from behind and score as seen in many football funniest clips which seems to lack common sense.
Complain about this comment
I'm no expert but I can not believe such a stupid rule exists. If a player is not on the pitch how can he be active ? I thought the main rule was that a defending player and goal keeper should be level or infront of the attacker when the "BALL IS KICKED". You can clearly see without playing the video that when the ball is crossed in there are 2 Dutch players offside. How can you expect defenders to suddenly think "oh Panucci is on the ground off the pitch but I need to get back because every Dutch player in still onside" - absolutely ridiculous !
Complain about this comment
Think we should scrap the offside rule, it's mad to have a rule in which the lineman has to look at the player passing the ball, the striker and the defenders all at once. Works in Hockey, in which international players are more than capable of playing long high balls to the other end of the pitch almost, and yet there are no poachers.
Alternatively, you could attach some kind of chip that sends a signal to a pitch-side computer in each players shirt, and would create a virtual map of the game and would automatically alert the ref of offsides.
As for last night, I did not know about this rule specifically, but had I noticed the defender off the pitch, I would have thought it was onside, as it does make sense.
Complain about this comment
Personally, I think it was 100% offside, as indicated by the reaction of the Dutch players.
It would amaze me that in a game with such relatively (ha!) simple rules as football, so many people whose profession is playing, coaching, analysing or commentating did not know this rule or interpretation existed.
Come on UEFA, pull the other one.
Complain about this comment
For those who still think the goal should have been disallowed, ask yourself this:-
1) Would your view have changed if Panucci, in rolling on the ground, had come to rest just inside the field of play?
2) Had 1) happened, did Holland commit any offence?
3) Would you have allowed Panucci to have picked himself up off the turf, whether from inside or outside the field of play, and attempted to prevent a goal?
I suspect the answers from those advocating 'no goal' would be: Yes, No, Yes.
Now ask yourself, how and why did Panucci find himself on the ground and out of the field of play?
Complain about this comment
Because Panucci was off the field of play having NOT received medical treatment, he's still involved in play and therefore playing van Nistelrooy onside.
If he was being treated for an injury he would have had to walk all the way to the dugout and wait to be allowed back onto the pitch by the ref. If he hadn't received treatment he could just run back onto the pitch to involve himself in play.
But let's change the situation slightly...
Say for instance Buffon made contact with the ball but not with Panucci and it was cleared to Sneijder.
If Panucci was standing on the touchline when the ball falls to Sneijder and realised by standing there he was playing van Nistelrooy onside, why couldn't he then just take a step backward off the field of play thereby rendering himself inactive and allowing the linesman flag van Nistelrooy offside?
The decision was correct and shame on the commentators and studio pundits for not realising this.
Complain about this comment
A lot of posters are saying people don't know the rules based entirely on Mr Hackets comments. Soccer is covered by 17 Laws - the law dealing with offside states that you are in an offside position if the ball and two opponents are not between you and the goalline(paraphrasing). The Laws also state that a played cannot deliberately leave the field of play. In addition FIFA issued instructions to Referees which state in relation to offside that if a player deliberately leaves the field of play in order to place an opponent in an offside position then the referee shall let the game continue and caution that player. To the best of my knowledge there is no "deeming rule" and no instruction covering the position where a player accidentally leaves the field of play. Perhaos Mr Hackett would be good enough to show us where this so called deeming provision is in the laws of the game. Or is it a case that the referees make it up as they go along?
Complain about this comment
At 1:49 pm on 10 Jun 2008, le_Professor wrote:
Because Panucci was off the field of play having NOT received medical treatment, he's still involved in play and therefore playing van Nistelrooy onside.
If he was being treated for an injury he would have had to walk all the way to the dugout and wait to be allowed back onto the pitch by the ref. If he hadn't received treatment he could just run back onto the pitch to involve himself in play.
But let's change the situation slightly...
Say for instance Buffon made contact with the ball but not with Panucci and it was cleared to Sneijder.
If Panucci was standing on the touchline when the ball falls to Sneijder and realised by standing there he was playing van Nistelrooy onside, why couldn't he then just take a step backward off the field of play thereby rendering himself inactive and allowing the linesman flag van Nistelrooy offside?
The decision was correct and shame on the commentators and studio pundits for not realising this.
-------------------------------------------------------
But isn't that the problem. Seeing previous posts where the actual law to which they are referring is stated, does it not say deliberately, which your scenario would be but it is hard to argue that was the case last night.
Complain about this comment
Also
"If a player accidentally crosses one of the boundary lines of the field of play, he is not deemed
to have committed an infringement. Going off the field of play may be considered to be part of
a playing movement.- Page 47.
"The referee shall adhere to the following procedure when dealing with injured players:
Play is allowed to continue until the ball is out of play if a player is, in the opinion of the referee,
only slightly injured." - Page 50.
"Exceptions to this ruling are to be made only when:
? A goalkeeper and an outfield player have collided and need immediate attention" - Page 51.
So if the ref deemed Panucci to be not injured or not injured sufficiently to require immediate treatment did Panucci get booked under rule 12 or was he waved on by the ref?
Complain about this comment
In golf, some situations are not covered by a rule and they are decided by 'equity'. If a defender in football walks across the goal line to play oposition off-side, then any goal should stand. But when he finds himself over the line by accident, by 1 or 20 yards (or laying there injured) as was the case with van-the-mans goal, then it is farcicle to consider him part of play. I don't know the rule but I do know everything is in the opinion of the ref', so such situations can be decided equitably. Nederlands 1st goal should never have been.
Complain about this comment
I can't believe anyone is actually arguing this. It's clearly onside. The fact the italian defender was on his bum is irrelevent. Imagine if he'd fallen on the pitch - there would be no question. He was still active as far as the rules of the game are concerned.
The only arguement is whether the law is wrong or unfair - personally I don't think it is.
Anyway, Holland were blistering and would have hammered the uninspiring Italians anyway, so what's the biggy!
Holland / Germany final I methinks...
Complain about this comment
To those who think the rule unfair, consider this.
If a defending player is out of position (way off to one side) but still between the goalie and the attacking player all he would have to do is feign injury and fall down out of the field of play and put the attacker offside.
This would make a mockery of the attacking team that has, by intelligent play or perhaps luck, achieved the position that Van Nistelrooy achieved yesterday.
More specifically as in yesterday's match if the goal had not counted, the Dutch would have been penalised for Buffon's misplay in knocking his defender into touch.
Complain about this comment
it was an obvious offside very bad decision made by the ref!!!
Complain about this comment
I definitely think the goal was legitimate - not just because i have money on the Dutch winning the Euros. Fair enough the defender was off the pitch but he could have ran back on without the ref's permission. Let's imagine that Ruud was played onside by another defender when Panuchi clattered into Buffon and fell off the pitch. If by some miracle, Panuchi had got back on the line and stopped the ball going in, would the goal have counted? The answer here is no. The ref would not have allowed the goal on the premise that Panuchi should not have come back on without his permission. Therefore, he is still active.
V good (or lucky) decision.
Complain about this comment
Offside has always been a controversial area .
Why have it ??? would the game be worse for having no offside ??
I would like to see a couple of games played where this was the case so as to form an opinion but as things stand anything that removes these kinds of judgements is in my opinion good.
We all blame the ref and his assistants at times but in this case they were absolutely right and the pundits owe them an apology.
Complain about this comment
First things first! Their is evidently a lack of clarity in the rule book about players being on or off the pitch! It would be impossible to say whether a player was feigning injury and so trying to guess whether the player was genuinely distressed or staying off the pitch to play a player off side would be impossible as plenty of players these days are mighty fine thespians!! It is all very shady and I for one can't think of a simple resolution to this gap in the law.
Secondly, I think the linesman made the decision based on Panucci as the 2nd man back. In which case he is vindicated. It is not the linesman who is at fault is in the laws of the game he had every right to give the goal as Panucci fell out of play in a defensive act, seconds before the goal!
Prediction for a winning team, France! Laugh all you like but they will come back strongly!
Complain about this comment
Also, if this is indeed the correct interpretation, what if the Italian defender was 5 yards over the goal line, but RVN had scored from 2 yards?
Would that have made him offside again, seeing as how he was "closer to the goal line" that the defender?
Farcical.
Complain about this comment
Of course the goal was legitimate. The player behind the goal is active, if he wasn't active then he should be booked for leaving the pitch without the referees permission.
Complain about this comment
Ultrasur - re Pogatetz.
He was a lucky boy. He clearly deliberately prevented his opponent from getting back to play the ball and, IMO, should have been cautioned.
The referee had already given him a card for dissent and was very lenient. Some might say it was common sense but where was Pogatetz's common sense? I think he knew what a second yellow would mean!!
Despite both players being off the field, it is another example of momentum taking them there and not a deliberate attempt to leave, so they would be treated as essentially still 'in play'.
Complain about this comment
What a strange question, if someone agrees on a rule that is in the book. If we would not agree, we could as well remove the goalpost.
It is however strange that the BBC commentators did not seem to know the rule. It would be wise to assign commentators who understand the rules of the game. As far as I understood only the German commentators knew the rules.
Complain about this comment
The consensus seems to be that a defender falling off the pitch doesn't put him out of the game. If he'd only fallen off for the moment that the ball was played, and then returned, he could have made a tackle and there wouldn't have been an argument. What if he was about to return, saw a through-ball was about to be made, and then let his legs go beneath him to justify staying off the pitch?
It's no use pretending they made up the ruling to cover themselves - bad decisions usually leave the official being hung out to dry. The idea the Rock was offside is nonsense.
Complain about this comment
There is one thing that separates humans from animals and it is called logic (or common sense). The rule is there to prevent defenders pretending that they are injured in order to stop a counter attack or stopping the play when an attacker is about to take a shot. Panucci collided with Buffon and landed off the pitch without having a clue where the ball is and of course without knowing what is going to happen next.
Too bad that a referee with total lack of common sense became the star of a wondeful match...but then again that is what the football governing body wants. To take some of the glory and the star factor away from the real stars, the players. Sad but true
Complain about this comment
Further to my earlier comment:
Players do not automatically become inactive when they go off the field of play. It happen constantly when a player dribbled the ball down the side line and kicks it across the field. He remains active regardless.
A player become inactive when he leaves the field of play to receive medical treatment, to attend to equipment problems or causes a stopage in play. He can only then become active again with the referee's permission.
Panuchi and the Italians cannot benefit from their own mistake.
Complain about this comment
To those measuring the distance beyond the goal-line. Please ignore this red herring.
For the purpose of this type of decision, any player who accidentally and temporarily is off the field of play is judged as if they are on the goal-line.
Complain about this comment
Officials were absolutely 100% right. Player was still active, could have gotten up to defend the goal. Good work officials.
Complain about this comment
The following sections can be found in the Laws of the Game, Additional Instructions and Guidelines for Referees:
"LAW 11 ? OFFSIDE
Infringements
(...)
If a defending player steps behind his own goal line in order to place
an opponent in an offside position, the referee shall allow play to
continue and caution the defender for deliberately leaving the fi eld
of play without the referee?s permission when the ball is next out of
play.
It is not an offence in itself for a player who is in an offside position to
step off the fi eld of play to show the referee that he is not involved in
active play. However, if the referee considers that he has left the fi eld
of play for tactical reasons and has gained an unfair advantage by reentering
the fi eld of play, the player shall be cautioned for unsporting
behaviour. The player needs to ask for the referee?s permission to reenter
the fi eld of play.
If an attacking player remains stationary between the goal posts and
inside the goal net as the ball enters the goal, a goal shall be awarded.
However, if the attacking player distracts an opponent, the goal shall
be disallowed, the player cautioned for unsporting behaviour and play
shall be restarted with a dropped ball in the position where the ball
was located."
If a player being off the pitch is considered to be a part of the game then all these sections above were nonsense.
Complain about this comment
I feel like I have entered some parallel universe.
This goal is not AT ALL contraversial.
The goal keeper and Panucci were playing Van Nistelrooy onside.
Simple as that.
Whether or not a DEFENDER is "active" or "passive" has NEVER been part of the offside rule.
(This incidently, is one of the reasons why I think the ruleabout ATTACKERS being "active" or "passive" is silly...its inconsistent)
This happens ALL the time. How often do you see a full back 30 yards away from the ball "play onside" an attacker in the 6 yard box? Week in week out.
There is absolutely NO doubt that this was a legal goal and SHOULD have stood.
The real point of debate is whether the rule should be changed. I don't think it should. Any attempt to introduce some "active/passive" rule for defenders would make the offside rule utterly impossible to implement.
Complain about this comment
the rule needs to be clarified more clearly.....
in order to prevent further problem..... thats all.....
Complain about this comment
Just consider this:
Had the goal been disallowed for offside, would there have been any argument or discussion?
I very much doubt it.
Noone would have even considered Panucci.
In my view the referee missed RVN's touch and thought that Sneijder's cross had gone straight in. By the time he realised what had happened it was too late and would have been too embarassing to change the decision.
I think it would be better to admit that it was a human error rather than to start stretching the rules to fit.
Complain about this comment
? A goalkeeper and an outfield player have collided and need immediate attention" - Page 51.
-----------------------------------------------------
Just as an aside out of interest, if this is the case why did Di Canio have to catch the ball that time as the referee hadn't stopped play?
Complain about this comment
The law according to FIFA states that there must be two defenders (including the goalkeeper) between the attacker and the goal line. The unfortunate Italian, taken out by his own goalkeeper is behind the goal line. So according to the laws of the game this should be disallowed for offside.
But... for the sake of arguement, imagine the Italaian player had managed to get to his feet rush back on the pitch and clear Van Nistelrooy's shot off the goal line, would he have been penalised? I rather think not, so he is still active and the goal should stand.
Complain about this comment
I think its obviously OFFSIDE because if the player is out of the ground you can't count him.
I have seen similar cases in EPL where the Referee let them stand but here NistelRooy is completely OFFSIDE.
Complain about this comment
Who cares to be honest, Holland won 3-0 even if it hadn't have counted, they would have still won 2-0 and at the end of the day, the ref gave it and people can debate all they like it isn't going to change!
Complain about this comment
gdv1981 ( post 130) - another excellent point. Quite correct - had the defender got back to clear the ball off the line, the referee would have deemed that as OK.
(unlike the earlier 'you are the ref' where the player that ran back on was receiving treatment and so was in a position to need permission to re-enter)
Complain about this comment
the rules don't bar panucci from kicking the ball off the goal line through the side netting
and the rules don't say that an injured player on the field of play cannot play the opposition onside
so he's active - could have touched the ball - and so he was playing RVN onside
when the ref allows medical personell to attend to a player that player becomes passive - cannot touch the ball nor play the opposition onside - and must return with the ref's permission on the half way line to be considered active once again
simple
Complain about this comment
To complicate things further: A corner kick is about to be taken. Two defenders stand alongside each goal post and the rest of the team place themselves in front of their opponents. As the kick is taken the two defenders step behind the goal-line. Are the attackers off-side or is it not possible to be off-side when a corner kick is being taken ?
Complain about this comment
Points I'd like to make (which have been made before I'm sure)
- Panucci was "active" because a player can't leave the field without the referee's permision. He could have rolled back onto the field and put RVN offside.
- stepping off the field of play, under your own power or someone else's, doesn't make you off the field of play. Players cross the touch line all the time to pass a defender or to get to open space.
- the referee didn't blow the whistle due to the injury so play continues regardless of whether or not he's on his feet.
- Buffon becomes the second last defender making RVN onside
Like someone else suggested, enlist in a referee clinic, and learn the rules. I did it a few years ago, and it has changed how i interpret and play the game.
Complain about this comment
Charli-George:
I feel you're doing the ref an injustice.
For one thing, it was plain to see that Ruud touched the ball.
For another, he's (arguably) the best in his country, he probably knows the rules.
And finally, it's the linesman's duty to give offsides!
This whole incident is thoroughly embarrassing for ITV. You'd have thought they'd have at least one "expert" who knows the laws of the game.
Complain about this comment
siebarlow, DeCanio DIDN'T have to catch the ball. He could have scored but showed that he is a sportsman (even if a bit of a nutter at times).
He stepped outside the laws of the game to ensure justice. You will find that the restart was a free-kick to the opponents (Arsenal?) although fortunately the referee didn't get carried away and caution him as well.
Complain about this comment
I missed it on the TV busy recovering from being out in Munich.
Reading the ruling its logical,
For a moment in pretence, Ignore Van vist...he was never there.
Had the defender suddenly jumped up to block the shot on goal, you would have said OK he was still in play.
So putting Van vist back in the situation he was never off-side.
Else all the argy bargy around corners etc would mean most defenders are out of play at some point. This means they would either have to wait for ref acknowledgement to return to the game or a break in play. I know this cannot be true as we have many times seen players go past a defender by passing the ball in field whilst running out of play and then back in. That white line is the boundary of the field and whether it is the bi-line or the side line, it only determines how we restart the game to put the ball back in play.
Complain about this comment
Even if Panucci had not made the goal legal, I'd have given it to the Dutch for poetic licence. I'm not a referee, and I'd guess that poetic licence doesn't feature in their rule book - but the Italians were just being so damned niggly, wasting their undoubted talents, that the Orange men just deserved a break.
Complain about this comment
The actual rule states that a player is in an offside position if "he is nearer to his opponent's goal line than both the the ball and the second last opponent."
If we take literally then this means that it depends if Panucci was closer to the goal line than Van Nistelrooy.
He wasn't and thus goal should stand, but had he fallen a yard further Nistelrooy would have been closer and thus offside !!!
Of course, it's all nonsense and common sense should prevail and the goal disallowed, but FIFA and common sense just don't go hand in hand do they !
Complain about this comment
Van Nistelroy, being "active" and nearer the goal than any defender on the pitch, was clearly offside.
I fail to see how the officials deemed the goal legitimate. Methinks they should've gone to Specsavers.
Complain about this comment
Ulsterman at 152
You can't be offside from a corner.
Also, you can't be offside if you're behind the ball, and
the defenders don't have to include the goalkeeper
Complain about this comment
Ulsterman (post 152). You cannot be deemed offside DIRECT from a corner BUT had the attack developed and a potential offside (such as last night's) occurred, the referee would have:
1) allowed play to continue and allowed the goal.
2) cautioned both of the attackers for DELIBERATELY leaving the field of play without permission.
This scenario is covered in the Additional Instructions and Guidance for referees in the Laws of the Game.
Complain about this comment
That was a legit goal.
The only offside call I remember them making that was wrong was one on van Persie late in the match, where another Dutch player made a dummy, and van Persie was clean through. The replays showed he was onside, and even the commentators remarked that he was "miles onside." Van Persie would have been clean through.
As much as the Dutch goal stinks for the Italians, it's fair, plain and simple. The required two defenders (Buffon and Panucci) were behind van Nistelrooy. Goals stands, plain and simple.
Complain about this comment
DEFINITELY a goal. A fan of both team's football - both very fluent and attacking with great individual stars. However, the goal stands because it was buffon who collided with his player. If the defender was not injured, and was making his way back on to the field i'm sure he would have done his best to intercept the shot - therefore, he was playing a part regardless.
Complain about this comment
Re comment posted by Ulsterman (152)
No, you can't be offside from a corner (or a throw in, or a goal kick)
Complain about this comment
Being a football referee I gave the goal straight away.
A player may not leave the field of play without the permission of the referee. if they do they are liable for caution and are still considered to be an active player.
thus panucci was still an active player and was playing van nistleroy onside.
goal stands. a big show of hands for the assistant referee for getting it spot on.
Complain about this comment
As a Referee myself, I am astounded that this goal was allowed to stand.
It is a truly horrendous and ridiculous decision ? and one which Italy will rightly feel, has had a significant bearing on the result.
Van Nistelrooy was clearly ?seeking to gain an advantage? by standing in an offside position as the cross-shot came in - and indeed seemed as surprised as anyone when the goal was allowed to stand after looking across to the Referee?s Assistant.
Panucci?s genuine abscence from the field of play clearly renders him inactive and more fundamentally, Dirk Kuyt could also have been flagged ? he too was offside and active within the line of sight of the Italian goalkeeper Buffon from the initial shot.
Is it any wonder Referee?s are being subjected to constant criticism and scrutiny when the game?s fundamental laws are flawed.
Absolutely ridiculous decision.
Complain about this comment
What if the defender was propelled over the stand behind the goal and onto a passing train to Munich? Would he still have been active?
I think the ref can be forgiven for giving this goal, and I'm looking forward to the "clarification" FIFA press conference.
Complain about this comment
Re: 11jon2 - I think its more about debating the offside rule which is clearly impossible for even the top referees and assistants in the game to interpret.
Yes, Holland won 3-0 and this won't change, but once again the offside rule throws up a scenario that doesn't fit the basic model and principles of that which it was meant to achieve. This isn't a one-off occasion it happens regularly.
Complain about this comment
I think we all understand the rule now, what happens if the referee ushers someone off the pitch for treatment - are they still playing the forwards onside?
Complain about this comment
THIS IS ALL ABOUT ADVANTAGE...
...who should benefit from the advantage to be gained by any decision the referee makes?
This can only be determined by the circumstances of the case:
1)
Buffon knocked his own player off the field of play, not any Dutch player.
2)
Panucci was still active when the ball came back in for RVN to score.
3)
Holland have done nothing (intentionally or otherwise) to gain an unfair advantage so there's no reason to apply the law to Holland's disadvantage.
4) Italy are not hard done by as it's simply the fair application of a Law of the Game, which one would surely expect the World Champions to know or at the very least understand!
The only other comment I have is, did the ref and linesman really process all this in the space of one or two seconds? If yes, bravo. If no, they made a bad decision as they didn't know about Panucci and missed what looked like a clear off-side. Who knows?
Complain about this comment
The thing is if you play strictly by the book surely play should have been stopped when the ball was first cleared as the injury appeared to be a head injury. I don't think the goal should have been allowed. The defender went off the pitch,
If strikers get away with being inactive and then active surely they should apply the rule to the denfender who was clearly inactive!
Remember Van Nistelrooy's goal against the Czech Republic in euro 2004 he was miles offside but considered inactive.
Complain about this comment
Russelsmith3 wrote: "Panucci was closer to the line than Van Nistelrooy so he is onside and the goal stands."
There's another rule that states that an out-of-field player should be considered as positioned on the line closest near him.
Complain about this comment
I find all these "you dont know the rules" comments very funny as in most cases no one knows the rules including the referees and they are based on interpretations and in some cases they have only being decided on this year in private summits.
the laws of the game published by fifa do not include this situation or explain it
so personally i would say that debate is appropriate in this situation
in my opinion anyone who has left the field of play accidentally whether as a result of his own player or not cannot be considered active, this always used to be the case
especially as an attacking player who deliberately steps of the field in that situation would be deemed to be non active.
this would be further backed up by the fact the player is lying face down and seems to be injured.
If the referee deems the act was deliberate in order to place someone offside the defender should have been booked under the laws of the game.
Complain about this comment
BigTonyWhite.
There is no longer an offside rule in hockey.
At the time that it was taken out of the rule book, there was much controversy with a lot of people saying that it would ruin the game.
However, it has proved to be a great success. The umpires can now concentrate fully on all of the other action without the worry of staying in line with the last defender whilst acting like a chameleon with one eye on the person striking the pass and the other on all of the attacking players in the "danger zone."
It also opens the game up. People said that it would lead to strikers playing their game alomst in the goalkeeper's pocket. This has proved not to be the case, as no coach in his right mind is going to waste their star striker in such a silly way!
I know that everyone will say that it is a ridiculous idea, but perhaps FIFA or UEFA or the FA should be bold enough to try it in one tournament and see how it goes.
Without actually trying it out in the game of football, all of the arguments a just pure speculation and worthless.
I don't hold out much hope though. How many people in the upper echelons of these football associations are bold enough to take such radical action?!
Complain about this comment
I was surprised about this rule but see that it makes sense. Other wise as a defender I would drag my players off the by-line rather than to the halfway line to play offside.
For all those calling it ridiculous to call him active. What if Van N had got himself behind the 3rd defender? Then done the same thing only to see it blocked by Panucci returning to the pitch, rather than faking an injury? Guess that would be OK? He would have been active all along? or just when he came back on? Doesn't your argument get a bit confused?
As part of the defenders union Van N got lucky but it?s the right decision and the right rule.
Complain about this comment
155. At 2:07 pm on 10 Jun 2008, BlueStarIT wrote:
siebarlow, DeCanio DIDN'T have to catch the ball. He could have scored but showed that he is a sportsman (even if a bit of a nutter at times).
He stepped outside the laws of the game to ensure justice. You will find that the restart was a free-kick to the opponents (Arsenal?) although fortunately the referee didn't get carried away and caution him as well.
----------------------------------------------------------
That was my point, the rules as quoted by somebody above stated that play should have been stopped by the referee in this instance. I know what Di Canio did was extremely sporting, but the laws of the game say play should have been stopped anyway
"The referee shall adhere to the following procedure when dealing with injured players:
Play is allowed to continue until the ball is out of play if a player is, in the opinion of the referee,
only slightly injured." - Page 50.
"Exceptions to this ruling are to be made only when:
? A goalkeeper and an outfield player have collided and need immediate attention" - Page 51.
Complain about this comment
The rules (and therefore allowing the goal) seem correct to me, I'm not sure you could easily clarify when a defender is interfering with play the way you can with attackers...
When a long ball is played through for an attacker to run onto, the keeper is not interfering with play (could be half a pitch away) but is still playing the attacker onside. You could not discount his presence for working out on/offside, but he is not currently interfering. Other examples could see a defender being on the other side of the pitch than the attacker but playing him onside, again you could not discount him being there but he is not interfering.
In regards to players being inactive when injured, there would be too much subjectivity involved ?Does he just need a couple of deep breaths? Does he just need 30 seconds sit down and gather himself? Is it something that will be run off in a minute? These could technically be described as ?injured? but enough to be not considered part of the game? What differences should on and off the field be? What is ?on? the field (if a player is half on or say just his leg is on)? What if a player hits his head (say on the post) and is dazed/concussed but still standing (on the pitch), is he active or injured?
Too many questions that lead to too many ways of interpreting the laws? Worst of all though, this could easily lead the way to even more play acting when there is already far too much.
I think the law and ref guidelines as they are now are about as defined as they can be and as such are the fairest overall ? All players are active unless agreed with the ref (they will need his permission to re-enter the pitch) and all active players can play someone onside (interfering or not).
Complain about this comment
The arguement that the player was off the pitch and so needed to be given permission to return is rubbish, players slide off all the tme and just run back on without any concern to the laws of the game regarding permission to leave and return.
Robbie Keene and Dion Dublin (I think) scored goals after running off the pitch in momentum and then sneaking behind the keeper who rolled the ball infront of themselves and nobody got annoyed. I refereed a few yesrs ago and know the laws have the international addendums so just reading the laws is not sufficient to argue a point. UEFA don't make them up as they go along they do it once a year, so the earlier comments are not helpful. I don't expect any comments on the positive side regarding refereeing at all, but like to see it when they do get it right.
Complain about this comment
This decision just shows how well trained the top referees and assistants are.
The commentators and fans were adament RVN was offside, however, as the decision, albeit controversial, was correct.
Let's give the officials a break and show them a little respect. After all how can we expect the players to show respect to the officials if we don't live by those standards ourselves.
Complain about this comment
I did notice Panucci on the ground on the replays and some mates and i had this discussion at the time of the goal. No-one could agree, but my opinion was that he was onside. Panucci was up and playing for the rest of the game so can't be considered injured. Even if he was i think you must count him as active, because if he'd not been rolling around on the floor practising his amatuer dramatics and had got up and made a goal line clearance the ref would have allowed it as he had never been declared in-active. Otherwise you leave it open for defenders to play a offside by all diving off the pitch pretending to have pulled a muscle or broken a nail.
Complain about this comment
First of all let me congratulate the officials in this game. Too many times we hear everyone complain about the ref or assistant bottling a 'decision'. But here they stood up to be counted and were not found wanting.
Secondly let me congratulate Ruud, he showed an innate understanding of the rules and realised that the Italian player was playing him on. Maybe all players need to read the rule book again (if they ever did).
as an armchair football fan i confess to not having a copy of the latest rule book to hand, but as coverage shows neither do the pundits, commentators et al. maybe you should add a player and a manager to this section and see how they interpret the situation as well as a ref.
Complain about this comment
169. MJP1966 wrote:
I think we all understand the rule now, what happens if the referee ushers someone off the pitch for treatment - are they still playing the forwards onside?
------------
No, then they aren't part of play because the referee has temporarily removed them from the game altogether. They'll need his permission to return, as well.
Complain about this comment
Offside was been removed from hockey some years ago. It is a much better game without it! There are also rolling substitutions which helps maintain the pace of the game.
Odd that a defender off the pitch is still considered active, but a forward in the 6 yard box can be considered 'inactive' and thence not offside. The balance between attack and defence seems unfair in this regard.
At 12:20 pm on 10 Jun 2008, BigTonyWhite wrote:
P.S. I am informed that in hockey you can step behind the goal line and play someone offside. Is this true?
Complain about this comment
181. At 2:19 pm on 10 Jun 2008, lfcanimal wrote:
First of all let me congratulate the officials in this game. Too many times we hear everyone complain about the ref or assistant bottling a 'decision'. But here they stood up to be counted and were not found wanting.
Secondly let me congratulate Ruud, he showed an innate understanding of the rules and realised that the Italian player was playing him on. Maybe all players need to read the rule book again (if they ever did).
as an armchair football fan i confess to not having a copy of the latest rule book to hand, but as coverage shows neither do the pundits, commentators et al. maybe you should add a player and a manager to this section and see how they interpret the situation as well as a ref.
----------------------------------------------------
I agree with the first point, you are right that they made there decision based on the rules. But to say Ruud showed an understanding is a bit much, after all, he seemed as surprised as most that the goal had been allowed to stand :-)
Complain about this comment
There's nothing to discuss. Both the ref as well as representatives of governing bodies, UEFA as well as FA have stated that the goal should have been allowed as it was.
Anyone who disputes this can only be:
A: Ignorant
B: Not agreeing with this paricular rule.
That does however not mean that the goal should have been disallowed.
I - personally - feel the rule is okay. and I'm sure many will agree if they read the following example:
Your the last defender of your team, your 1 feet away from the goalline, but still on the pitch the nearest defender on your team is on the edge of the penalty box and an opponents attacker is at the penalty spot when a paas is about to be played towards this attacker. Without this rule the defender would simply be able to step out of bounds in order to create an offside situation. That is certainly not what we all want, is it?
Complain about this comment
If Ruud VN was ruled offside then in the future all defenders would just leap over the line and feign injury. That way they wouldn't have to push the line forward at once as they'd all jump off the pitch supposedly playing the opposition offside.
It was a goal, and well done to Holland for winning. Also did anyone notice Panucci being terribly injured? No. He was back on his feet in no time...
Complain about this comment
Time to give ref the credit. I learned something. Rule also makes sense. For those who think that ref should have considered the "situation", I say nonesense. Ref has enough on his plate and he is not going to act as judge and jury or psychologist . Tough break for Italy but ref got it right. The post that accuses tef of not being gentlemen.... sorry but where do you stop,, should we not count the own gaols as well, cause clearly they were unintentional be opposing teams defenders and it would be very much of an sporting and gentlamnly gesture to disallao own goals if refs percieved as not intentional.
No way.. ref should enforce the rule and need not be burdoned with extra duty of being a mind reader.
Complain about this comment
What about this section if Panucci was an "active player", a part of the game?
"If a defending player steps behind his own goal line in order to place
an opponent in an offside position, the referee shall allow play to
continue and caution the defender for deliberately leaving the field
of play without the referee?s permission when the ball is next out of
play."
Complain about this comment
185 - Or fall over backwards clutching your head in a simulated migraine attack
Complain about this comment
If the rule changed defenders could create offside situations by stepping off the pitch on the goal line
Complain about this comment
As Panucci was off the field of play, he could have received treatment for whatever the injury was, without affecting the game.
If it had been a serious injury this could then have gone on for some time without interfering with play itself.
Is Mr Hackett suggesting that all the time this is happening Panucci would still be treated as the last man and as long as the attacking player did not move beyond the goalkeeper he would always be treated as onside.
What a load of rubbish.
Complain about this comment
Now... let me explain... I think this is DEFO not offside. Whatever way you look at it.
1. Panucci ended up off the "field of play" as a RESULT of a challenge in the air. If he had of landed on the line there would be no argument?
He didnt walk off/get carried off, as a result of injury, he was still in the game.
Think of the times players have been behind goal keepers and the goal keeper has dropped the ball on the floor to continue play and that player behind the goal has taken the ball and scored. This is the same thing!
Panucci was STILL part of play whatever way you look at it!
If only the game of football was that easy! Step off the pitch whenever you want to play the offside trap? HAHA!
Complain about this comment
I was sure last night that it was offside because , like almost everyone else, I have heard (from the 'experts' on TV anyway) that you cannot play someone onside if you are off the field of play. If this is not the law then why did everyone think that it was, has this law been changed recently?
Also people seem to be able to quote the laws to back up two opposing arguments. It seems to me that the laws are extremely imprecise and open to interpretation. The laws are arbitraty and really do not need to be this complicated!
Complain about this comment
lets say the rule is changed.
what happens if a defender is very deep and before the player passes the defender runs off the field, which under the change would make the player recieving offside.
the player didnt leave the field of play to recieve treatment or anything he got knocked behind, he didnt have permission to leave and wouldnt need permission to come back on.
if a player is chasing a ball and runs out while trying to catch it he is still considered active, he wouldnt stand there like a dimwit saying "can i come back on please"
Complain about this comment
GunnerDaniel (post 162) - the reason the VanPersie goal was offside was exactly the 'dummy' you refer to.
The player dummying was in an offside position and, by his actions, interfered with the opponents by distracting them by his movement.
Once you are in an offside position with the ball played forward by a team-mate you will be pulled up if you either:
1) play the ball,
2) interfere with an opponent
3) gain an advantage (ball rebounds to you from the goalframe or a defender)
Complain about this comment
Easily the correct decision, people can argue about it as much as they want but i was right.
If the situation was reversed then you can understand why this was the right decison.
For example.
-if the player that had slid of the pitch was an attacking player(R.V.N)
- then a shot by holland took place which caused the keeper to make a save and the ball bounced loose.
-then R.V.N got up from behind the line, ran onto the pitch and stuck the ball in the back of the net.
This would be considered offside or at least cause a massive arguement. As RVN would have been in an offside position(despite being off the pitch) it would have given him an advantage to get to the ball and score.
Complain about this comment
Allah0789, itvtv4u : the discribed case is an infringement as it is clearly stated in the law of the game.
Complain about this comment
No thereferee's assitant was spot on. He is of the field not by his but is still active. Think about a winger running down the line and as he goes around a defender he steps out of play, does he need the refs permission to come back on, or a defender who slides in to clear a ball off the line and goes over the goal line does he need permission to come back on. NO. In all these instances the player has NOT DELIBERATLY left the field he has done so by actions connected with the game and as susch he remains active.
Complain about this comment
Thank god England were not the team which such a situation occured, otherwise there would have been death threats and all sorts pointed towards the officials of the game. Having read a bit on the rule from the UEFA Referee Official, the referee made the right decision.The matter is over, we have now come to understand a rule which alot of us previously had not understood or come across, and in any case the Italian team lost by 3 goals and not just the 1. In either case, i think people must accept that unless they read the laws of the game properly or practice them as the referee's and players do, its really easy to make comments from your armchair. The Italian's were unlucky, not to score and lose by such a big margain, i praise Donadoni for his comments after the game, just goes to show a player who has played the game at the highest level alwys understands controversial desicions more than an individual who has not played the game at all, or played at an amatuer level, which applies to most of the watching public.
It was a very good game, and it certainly has bought the tournament to life, as in all honesty the other games were rather dab, and boring. I think they should invite 2 non- european teams to this tournament and spice it up a little, as the South Americans have done recently with their Copa America Tournament. Now there is a interesting proposition for Uefa.
Complain about this comment
I cant get over the amount of idiots here bleating on about defenders being "inactive" or "not interfering with play", have any of you ever actually played the game?
There is nothing in the laws about a defender being "active" or "inactive." If it were the case, how would you explain a defender on one touchline playing a winger on the opposite touchline onside. He's hardly likely to catch him or "interfere with play" now is he?
A defender can only be removed from consideration if he leaves the field, with the referee's permission, to receive treatment, change his playing attire, or use the bathroom (it sometimes happens!). Similarly, a player can only be booked for leaving the filed of play without permission if they leave the filed for one of the above purposes.
Finally, a player who leaves the field in the normal course of play, and is injured, is free to rejoin at any time, but may only receive treatment with the referees permission. He is considered part of the game until such time as the referee permits him to receive treatment.
Complain about this comment
Also further to that. The field of play is NOT in anyway the big rectangular thing that is marked out with white lines! It is whatever seems appropriate at the time!
Complain about this comment
It's a well known fact that the vast majority of players and managers do not know the laws of the game.
It's also apparent that all of the commentators and so-called pundits (ex players and managers) don't know the laws either.
To leave the field of play (not the pitch), a player needs the referee's permission and without that permission he is considered to be still on the field of play - hence why Panucci would only have needed to regain his footing (i.e. stand up) and run back onto the pitch (the area bounded by the white lines) and continue playing without the referees permission.
Although he was off the pitch, technically he was still on the pitch at the point on the goal line where he left the pitch (but remained as an active player on the field of play).
Instead of commentators (BBC, ITV or Sky) bad mouthing the officials, it may be an idea for the TV companies to employ a qualified (and retired) referee to adjudicate on points of law.
We may then see an all round improvement in behaviour, instead of the inflammatory comments on the TV last night and on the blog by your correspondent this morning.
A (very) ex-referee.
Complain about this comment
When first looked at the goal, I thought the ref was dead wrong. But after explaination, it really made 100% sense. It prevented defender off the pitch to make the offside trap. Italy just unlucky throughout last night. The first goal might not be lost if their defender was not off the field. Second goal; they could scored but cleared line and lost straight away. The third goal was just seconds Van Der Sar made a save of the touranment so far.
Holland well deserved to win. So far as those two teams are the best. Will not surprise if they play again in the finals.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Jeff L, have you already read "LAW 11 - OFFSIDE, Infringements" section of the laws of the game?
Complain about this comment
Such a shame that so many contributors can't appreciate the contribution of the officials in this scenario.
Leaving aside any views on whether the laws/interpretations are right - the officials made a great call (within the current laws/interpretations) and did it in the heat of battle and did not bottle it.
Too many people have suggested they got it wrong and only afterwards someone got the law book out and showed they were right. These guys (particularly the assistant refs) are at the peak of their game and know these laws and every interpreatation of them inside out - just so they can make these split-second calls.
Give them some credit (especially the scandalous TV pundits who all owe a major apology to these guys).
I know they sometimes get an offside call wrong (due to the speed of things happening) but they are not often wrong in law (sorry Mr Poll, you are the exception that springs to mind)....
Complain about this comment
In addition, this ref probably the best so far in the tournment.
Complain about this comment
For the poster who wanted to know how many assistant referees out of 100 would get this call right the answer is every one with more than say 25 matches experience at any level.
As an AR you are completely focused on finding and staying in line with the second to last defender. Everything else is totally secondary. This is true no matter where the ball is on the pitch-- you spend 90 minutes staring at the second to last defender. As a consequence the AR on the match would have found himself in line with the Italian keeper as he knew instinctively to count the defender who was off the pitch. Since van Nistelroy was to the left of the second to last defender (in this case the keeper) from the AR's point of view, it would have been easy to keep the flag down.
My own AR game count is probably around 400. Trust me, our game is different from the spectators' game. It is highly technical, and at the Euro level of play, physically and mentally demanding. Am I surprised this AR got it right? Not at all. And neither was the center ref, who booked for dissent before the ensuing kickoff.
BTW, did anyone notice the Italians falling all over the pitch in the last ten minutes? Center ref was having none of it.
Complain about this comment
The main source of disagreement on this subject is regarding "being active" during an offside situation. Being active is different for attackers and defenders. An attacker can be considered "passive" if he has or relinquishes his input on the team movement (he does not even need to be out of the four lines to be considered as such).
For the deffending point of view there is no such thing as a "passive" situation and never was or this could be exploited and abused into stratospheric proportions.
It would have been extremelly unfair to Holland to have this goal disallowed when an Italian defender had been knocked down by another Italian player who did not stop to help (raced back to the goal).
This would have opened an enourmous amount of deceitful defending tactics to detriment of the best of this game which is ultimately to score goals
Complain about this comment
Just joining in on this, it has certainly creating a very good talking point regarding the offside law.
With regards to comments being made re players deliberately stepping off the field of play to say make a player offside then this type of action is punishable by a caution as the player is deliberately leaving the field of play without the referees permission or he can also be said to be circumventing the laws of the game.
When Panucci and goalkeeper collided it looked to me that the italian was injured and obviously off the field of play, not deliberately though. So should an offside decision be given? Obviously the authorities have stated their claim to that it was the correct decision as per the laws of the game.
If i had have been the assistant referee i would more than likely have given offside as to me Panucci was not an active player as he was lying down off the field of play and not active, but i do not officiate at that level and i do not think that any players know that players off the field of play have to be counted....
Lets see what happens at local level football next season.....It will be interesting....But players be warned....if you deliberately leave the field of play without the referees permission you will be cautioned.
Great debate by the way.
Complain about this comment
Sorry to amend my post above. Of course it goes without saying that when the ball passes the second to last defender then you are going with the ball. That of course is why the wings take it to the by-line before cutting the ball back-- it puts everyone onside.
Complain about this comment
Well, no doubt the rule exists.
But as often with soccer ruling bodies, they don't really know much about soccer.
Panucci was off the pitch because he crashed with Buffon, not because trying to do any type of trick.
The Dutch waited to celebrate, and that says how much that rule.
It is like being booked for because taking off the shirt.
The poeple enforcing that rule they never play soccer at any level.
Complain about this comment
All I can say is well done to the lines man, not only for annoying the italians, but also for knowing the exact rules, what all refs and lines men should have.
Complain about this comment
geoff0364,
Far be it for me to argue with a referee, but I pity the players that play in games in which you officiate.
If RVN was looking for confirmation of the goal, it would have likely been because he knows (just as it has become clear from a lot of posters here, commentators and pundits) that the rules of the game are not widely understood. He would have been anxious that the referee yesterday was fully conversant. I say this on the assumption that RVN, on his salary, would have to be proficient in the rule book.
Italy made a mistake and a goal resulted - that is generally how they are scored.
Complain about this comment
Most people, including myself were unaware of this rule. After it has been explained it makes perfect sense.
Lets credit the officials as they are normally on the wrong end of criticism.
I thought it was game of the tournament so far and the man of the match was the referee. He didn't stand for any diving or cheating, tried to keep the game flowing and made what could turn out to be a crucial decision and a correct one.
Still thought Van Nistelrooy should have had a penalty though. Not much contact from Buffon but outside the box it would have been pulled back as no advantage was gained. That damn referee...LOL
Complain about this comment
I have to say that at first glance, I knew that the right decision had been made. Was it deliberate, or a complete accident, I don't know, but it was clear that Panucci was active. Yes he went down injured, but the game had not been stopped for him and he carried on the game afterwards.
What was interesting to me was that van Nistelrooy didn't know the rules any more than anyone else, otherwise he would have been nearer the goal anyway. This might go against the spirit of the game on this occasion, but the goal was within te rules, and frankly, the Dutch deserved to win anyway.
Complain about this comment
I always thought that the goal was good having seen the defender go down.
It was unfortunate for Italy, but had the defender fell on the 6 yard line, and lay prostate, everyone would agree Van Nistlerooy was on-side.
The ref could have stopped play had he thought the injury serious, but he did not, and would you want refs stopping play every time a defender goes down on the floor inside the penalty area?
Well done officials.
Complain about this comment
If the player is in active play and has a head injury - as shown in the clip - then the ref should have stopped play after buffon's clearance to allow the player to have been treated.
If the ref deems that this doesnt need to happen because the player is off the pitch and can receive treatment without the need to stop the game, then the player is inactive.
Complain about this comment
At 12:14 pm on 10 Jun 2008, Miraglyth wrote:
Rules are rules.
Anyone who disagrees with this goal either:
- Didn't notice Panucci behind the goal.
- Does not know of the rule.
- Calls the rule itself "stupid".
The first two are somewhat fair - the person simply does not know better and can be suitably informed - but the last is somewhat comedic.
Which is where we are with this debate.
________________________________
I disagree. In saying "The rule is stupid" people are clearly pointing out the lack of logic, as to how a player off the field, apparnently injured can be considered in play. He is on the ground out of the area. He is not going to jump up and suddenly prevent a player scoring. It is such an illogical rule, that the players themselves, those who play the game day in and day out thought the goal should be disallowed. I would say the dutch celebration was more gleeful at getting away with it than actually scoring it. The player on the ground was about as active as the subsitutes or the fans in the stand and if we extend the logic, if you are seated at a football match in the stand you could be arrested for interfering with the field of play. Com'on common sense, the rule should indeed be changed. I have seen players run off the field of play in order not to play a player on side. The goal of course stands, but it should have been ( morally if you will ) offside.
Complain about this comment
I can understand both points of view...
But if you think about it... If your strikers stood behind the goal line throughout the match then jumped on when ever they like you could abuse the rule.
Complain about this comment
This seems to be a case of the referee?s community rallying round in the face of criticism. The law in question seeks to penalise players who deliberately leave the field of play to put an opponent in an off-side position.
In this instance the defender, Christian Panucci, was bundled into touch by another player and lay injured. Therefore this rule does not apply the player is not active and van Nistelrooy is offside. The suggestion that he made no effort to come back on is clearly negated by the fact that he appears injured and has but a few seconds to even regain his feet.
The linesman, sorry, assistant simply made a mistake and is seeking to justify his actions.
Complain about this comment
I have enjoyed reading the technical debate -- interesting points have been made on both sides. I believe that at the very least this incident provides an illustration of how UEFA interprets such situations (at least until further official reconsideration, if ever that should happen at all).
Might I ask people to comment only on the rule and not on how they deem entire nations as law-abiding or not? In particular, justice4AUS should be invited to look at a video studying the very incident s/he considers as typical of 'the grandma of all deceipt in football' -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS6Wqt00gTc.
Other viewers should consider how players and teams from nations other than Italy have either bent the rules or accepted misjudgements in their favour. (Funny, I seem to remember a 'goal' in 1966 that only the referee believed had crossed the line ...)
Complain about this comment
I have just checked out the offside rule in response to some comments. Much to my surprise I discovered the following:
a) The rule says there should be two players closer to the goal line than the attacker, rather than between the goal lin and the attacker - i.e. nothing about them being on the field of play. I can understand how this would prevent defenders stepping off the pitch to play a forward offside, but if two injured players were receiving treatment just behind the goal line, would this play all attackers onside no matter what?
b) The rules do not seem to have anything to say about defenders being 'active'.
c) The rules do not say anything about the ball having to move forward to the attacker. i.e. if the winger leaves a trail of defenders in his wake, and then cuts the ball back to a forward who does not have two defenders closer to the goal line, then the attacker is offside. This is the one that surprised me.
Conclusions: (1) Van Nistelrooy's goal should stand; (2) The rules need to be fixed.
Finally, re using TV evidence in big games, if the referee is in doubt, why not just play on as if the forward is onside and then only check the TV evidence to see if he was offside if a goal is scored. This would allow referees make the correct decision with the benefit of TV evidence without having to stop the game every few minutes to consult with the fourth official.
Complain about this comment
allwhitekit:
He did not need the ref to wave him back on. He had been knocked out of play, not taken off, and thus he could have come back in whenever he wanted. I must say that i did notice the player, which was why I was confused when everyone said he was offside. I still believe it was a goal, and it's really not up for dispute: that player, under the current rules, played VN onside. Whether these should be altered is another argument to which I believe the answer is no. He could get up at any time, so it would further cloud an already ambiguous rule.
Complain about this comment
The goal and the rule should stand as it is.
Panucci had a choice, get up and defend or stay on the pitch,but behind the line, and not get up.
Oviously a player shouldn't put their health in danger to defend but they have to accept until the referee recognises them as injured and calls on support if needed they are still in play.
Since the game was still in play it was his choice to leave the field. We can't have players dictating when game play is stopped by them stumbling over the back line.
Complain about this comment
The FIFA rulebook wrote:
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 or her off-field position. A defender who leaves the field with the referee's permission (and who thus requires the referee's permission to return) is not included in determining offside position.
End of discussion.
Complain about this comment
The rules of Association Football are very simple. The interpretations of those rules have been developed over a long period of time and everyone has the opportunity to learn them. Other than a few professional referees who go on training courses, nobody really bothers to learn these rule interpretations - not players, not pundits and certainly not Joe Public.
I often watch Match of the Day and I often find myself squirming at some of the drivel being expounded by commentators or pundits. No wonder referees have a hard time from the media and the public. If you don't like or understand a rule then the rule is at fault - not the ref!
As to the incident:
1) The consideration of "active" in the interpretation of the offside rule applies only to attackers, not to defenders.
2) Players are considered "in the field of play" unless the referee has allowed them to leave the field (e.g. for medical treatment) during a stoppage in play.
3) The rules were therefore correctly applied by the officials.
Complain about this comment
Another point is: what if Panucci was very badly injured or even dead? Can a defender's corpse make an attacker onside? How could the ref know Panucci was alive and, yes, kicking?
A Worried Goalie
Complain about this comment
Isn't it great that we have something to argue about such as this
I wonder what would have happened if technology had to make the decision
Complain about this comment
A striker can remain behind the goal line in order not to go offside and give his team an advantage. But a defender is still active?
If a defender hobbles off the pitch injured, at what point is he inactive?
Complain about this comment
I love how much of a talking point last night's incident has generated.
Reading through the posts you have to agree with the fact that play was not stopped, therefore Panucci's involvement has to be taken into consideration.
It's strange because you often see attackers who have 'run out of pitch' stay out of play until the move breaks down in fear of being offside.
We just need an incident like this to occur in one of today's games and there will be outrage. This is why I love football so, so much.
Complain about this comment
Two things:
* The referee's decision is final. If he had got it wrong, RVN would still have been onside, because the referee said he was.
* Graham Poll is a disgrace. Considering his most notable achievement in the sport is to book someone three times, he should have more respect for officials in the heat of the game. If the ref had made a mistake, better that he says the decision is final and supports him in any case. To lambast him when he's obviously correct is much worse, and he should cease his involvement in the game in any official capacity.
Complain about this comment
im not entirely sure how the rule works but i wud have thought thew fact that Panucci was off the pitch wud have meant he cant have played van nisteroy offside.
if a player goes down isnt the refferee supposed to blow the whistle now rather than the other team kicking the ball out so if he hasnt called it up surley he cant consider the player to be involved in play.
Complain about this comment
In my opinion, the most pathetic part of the offside law is that the attackers can be "not interfering with play" yet defenders can't.
Scenario:
Attacker is tying his shoe laces up near the corner flag of his opponents half.
A long ball is played over the defence to a different forward running onto it from an onside position. The guy tying his laces may be offside, but not interfering so play continues.
Lets switch it round, a defender is now tying his laces up in the same corner. He would not be intefering with play (we established that with the attacker being there!) yet he plays every attacker onside (so long as the keeper stays on his line!).
The defenders get a naff deal with this "not interfering" rule. They must watch every striker whether interfering with play or not. A clever striker can then draw that defender away from the ball knowing he will "not interfering" with the next move by his team mate.
Defenders should watch all players on the opposition, therefore if you are attacking, how can you not be interfering with the game? Someone on the defensive team is aware you are there and you're interfering with the mindset of that player as to what to do!
It is the silliest term the old gits could muster up between them. They must love inventing such stupid laws.
Complain about this comment
the point everyone seems to be missing is that players have always thougth that if you where of the pitch (my teammates and myself included thou we only semi-pro), then the player would be offside (look at van's reaction when he scored he couldnt believe it) but you never have seen players step off the pitch just to get a player offside, i think the rule should be made so that if a player is over the line like last nite, then the forward should be called offside due to the defender being dwn and not in the game.
Complain about this comment
Defiinitely have to play by the rules even when they seem unfair.
Re the comment below about hockey: there is no offisde in field hockey any more.
Complain about this comment
The referee was correct in that the goal should stand under the current rules. But why can we not go back to the old offside rule that everyone can understand?
Complain about this comment
It was offside!!!!
No Question about it!
Complain about this comment
235 -thejackhammer
And you really think that pro footballers (or even semi-pro :-)) wouldn't and haven't used that kind of ''rule'' to their advantage.
They bend and twist every law they can get away with, so you can be sure they certainly would find a way of ending up off the pitch to make use of this it was a rule.....
Complain about this comment
One more point: if the rule merely says "nearer to the line", no matter which side of the goal line, how can the linesman assess if a defender who has ended - say - behind the photographers sitting behind the goal, is closer to the goal line than an attacker? (not to mention that such defender may have died crashing his head against a camera lens).
Methinks this is a very very hazy rule.
A Worried Goalie (again)
Complain about this comment
Is it not essentially an extension (of sorts) that says had Panucci been bundled into his own goal then strictly speaking he's not ON the field of play but is still active in the sense he could still clear a ball off the line, and would have been playing RvN onside?
Complain about this comment
Here in the states the game was carried by ESPN2 and commentated by none other than the EXPERT Andy Gray?????? abley
assisted by Tommy Smyth. who is about as expert as my big toe. Both of them argued till blue in the face, even after having the rule explained to them that the Dutch 1st goal was indeed offside. It was after the game that Smyth back tracked, but still did not understand.
Most of the comments on the ESPN board were correct in their interpretationn right from the start. I now look forward to a few more exiting games.
I Love Ask the Ref by the way.
Complain about this comment
240 - Catito
The assumption is that the defending player (no matter where or how far he is behind the line) is actually on the line.
Complain about this comment
M own personal take on the decision is that the assistant referee made a mistake in judging van nistleroy onside, but that the officials have subsequently found this rule which proves this decision is correct. I think initially the goal should have not stood, and so does van nistleroy and the whole holland squad in truth.
Complain about this comment
Actually I have seen, on a number of occasions, where a goal has been given when an attacker (not the goal scorer) has crossed over the dead-ball line during an attack, as he was not 'interferring' with play; when, in this interpretation, he was clearly off-side. It seems to me the 'powers-that-be' make it up as it suits! If a player is 'rolling around on the ground' off the pitch, say at the corner flag, he is now officially actively taking part in the game. I look forward to the next missive from UEFA.
Complain about this comment
@StannOwl
Whatever the rule is the decision to allow this goal was against the spirit of fair play. Panucci was off the pitch injured. He did not deliberately step off the pitch to place RVN in an offside position and in fact his team were at a disadvantage because they were playing, or so they thought, with 10 men.
-------------
You seem to forget that the spirit of the rule also wasn't meant for defenders playing the attackers offside by using the offside trap especially so close to goal. It was meant to discourage opposite goal hanging by the attackers even when the play was on the other half. Too avoid having permanent attackers in the opposite box and permanent defenders accompanying them.
This rule in question was meant to discourage goal hanging by the defenders in their own goal. The rules just are less arbitrary for good reason as it otherwise would become a total mess. The fact that it is so uncommon to happen is that defenders won't usually step off the field because it doesn't alleviate offside.
Attackers do step off the field but that is irrelevant to this situation. Offside only considers the attacker with the ball unless the attacker without the ball interferes with play and is offside. To avoid that an attacker steps out of the field. A defender can't be inactive without a ref's permission, injured or not.
If being injured was relevant than an injured Panucci that was laying just inside the field should also not be considered active and would also play Ruud offside. It doesn't matter whether he is in or out of the field nor if he is injured or not! It only matters if the ref stops the play first.
Why would Holland even be punished if it wasn't a foul that dropped Panucci? It's a gentlemen's agreement to kick the ball out of play, that would have acknowledged Panucci as injured and inactive, but that is not common when a team is in a scoring position.
What if Panucci just stumbled over his own feet and fell and injured himself just inside the box, would that make Ruud offside. Again injury that doesn't stop the play nor being out or on the play matters! Not for attackers nor defenders!
Attackers stepping over the goal line are active as well but are NOT interfering with play hence they are not being counted for being offside. Defenders can't be counted being offside on their own half so it's irrelevant. Offside is only looked at from the attacker's point of view.
Complain about this comment
244 - birdcharmer
So no credit for the officials actually knowing the laws )and their many and various interpretations) backwards and applying them correctly in the middle of a top-level international football match.
Absolutely typical! Couldn't be that they are at the top of their profession and actually know what they are doing....?
Complain about this comment
Great refereeing, great goal.
It always used to be lamented that, at major tournaments, a quota system led to under-par officiating, but here is a case proving the merits of quality.
Already, I would be considering referee (and/or linesman) for the final...
By the way, #35, everyone else is talking about REAL hockey - not dancing-on-ice hockey!!!
Complain about this comment
If the guy behind the line got up and stopped RVR scoring GOAL, all the people who's criticizing LAW, would say "what a stop by Christian Panucci, hmm funny world.
Complain about this comment
It does make me laugh, all this debate over a goal that is clear valid according to the rule book.
Just to add a bit of spice, had the goal been disallowed would Panucci had jumped to his feet and carried on as normal??
We cannot ask the referee to stop a match everytime someone looks hurt, we already have too many play actors in our wonderful game.
What goes around come around and lets face it, the Italians are not known to dive and fake injuries are they!!!
Complain about this comment
i understand the rule is in place and that the goal should have stood because of that.
i think this is a no win situation for refs, if they disallow it then any defender playing an attacker online could go off and claim they were inactive but at the same time if you're genuinely injured how can you be called active, especially if you're off the field at the time. again, i think its a no win for refs and linesmans
Complain about this comment
Redwoodsteve (post 245) - a defender does not have to be interfering to affect an offside decision. An attacker, on the other hand, has to be 'active' (whether this means by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent).
In both of your scenarios (off the field or writhing by the corner), the attacker would not be a part of play, so would not be offside.
A defender, in either of these scenarios, WOULD still be in a position to be playing someone onside.
It's another example of attackers having an advantage where possible.
Complain about this comment
Any goal against the Italian team should be allowed !!!!
They have had their share of controversial decisions (comedia del arte)
Just joking ;)
Complain about this comment
@Redwoodsteve
Actually I have seen, on a number of occasions, where a goal has been given when an attacker (not the goal scorer) has crossed over the dead-ball line during an attack, as he was not 'interferring' with play; when, in this interpretation, he was clearly off-side. It seems to me the 'powers-that-be' make it up as it suits! If a player is 'rolling around on the ground' off the pitch, say at the corner flag, he is now officially actively taking part in the game. I look forward to the next missive from UEFA.
------------------------
Come on now! You do get the difference between attackers and defenders? With your logic a defender that is standing at a corner flag on his own half talking to his girlfriend in the stands should not be counted for making an attacker onside? Who are you kidding?
You probably do agree that an attacker standing on the corner flag of the opponents talking to his girlfriend shouldn't be counted in making a fellow attacker offside? You are all familiar with that rule, aren't you?
With defenders it doesn't matter whether they interfere with play or not, with attackers it does matter!
Complain about this comment
Wow. Amazing how many people STILL don't understand that the concept of "inactive" or "not interfering with play" DOESN'T APPLY TO A DEFENDER, even though it's been explained about a dozen times above.
Now if you think the distinction between attackers and defenders is unfair and should be re-examined, you're entitled to that opinion -- as long as you realize that it IS the rule/guidance as written today, and that the officials were correct to give the goal.
But if after almost 250 posts you STILL think that some imaginary "inactive" state applies to a defender and that "the powers-that-be" are "making it up" or retroactively trying to protect the officials... well, that's just sad.
Complain about this comment
Assume if the player is active and not injured and he runs after the goal keeper before the ball being hit.Do you consider it as offside.I think the rule is correct and if you don't do so all the players will stay behind the goal keeper.Irrespective of injured or not rule is rule and if you change it , it surely adds more trouble than spice to the game.
Great decision from the referee
Complain about this comment
235 -thejackhammer,
so if the rule allowed what you said,
does that not allow players to pretend to go down injured behind the goalline to stop a goal from happening?
that would result in making the diving situation worse, where it is not only the forwards that are diving, but also the defenders.
Complain about this comment
In response to post 152 by ulsterman. the area within the goal is considered to be part of the field. Sorry but thats it full stop.
Complain about this comment
allwhitekit, UEFA haven't made up any rules to cover themselves. That rule has existed for quite a while.
A player needs the referees permission to leave the field, if he hasn't got it he is considered active. If a player purposely steps off the field to play an opposition player offside play continues and the player is booked for unsporting conduct.
Pannuci left the field of play without the referees permission, he must be considered active.
Complain about this comment
So, let's accept that the goal was correct. In this case the following rule should be deleted since it has no meaning:
"If a defending player steps behind his own goal line in order to place an opponent in an offside position, the referee shall allow play to continue and caution the defender for deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee's permission when the ball is next out of play."
Complain about this comment
In fact Panucci is thrown out of the pitch by Buffon who uses Panucci's momentum and body to pull himself into the field and goal line again. As for the "active presence" of Panucci behind the line I must admit I'm confused about the matter.
Complain about this comment
the goal was good and having read the "fifas advice to referees" it is obviously correct. too many people giving their opinion after only having read the "Laws of the Game".
11.10 Putting an opponent in an offside position unfairly.
If a defending player moves beyond his or her own goal line or across a touch line to place an opponent in an offside position, the referee should not stop play immediately to caution the defending player, but should allow play to continue. The attacker should not be punished for the position in which he or she has been unfairly placed: however, the referee should caution the defending player at the next stoppage of play for leaving the field of play without the referees permission
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 or her off-field position. A defender who leaves the field with the refereees permission (and who thus requires the referee's permission to return) is not included in determining offside position"
Complain about this comment
I watched the game, live on t.v.
I never for a second thought the goal was offside.
I was, however, shocked at the response of the presenters and other pundits!
Wow! Who would have thought a Canuck would know the rules of football better than the professionals.
Complain about this comment
In any case, people are talking too much about this goal. The Dutch won 3-0, so even if the goal did not count they still would have beat the Italians in a game that they dominated.
Complain about this comment
Unless I have lost it in all these continual rule changes, any player who is off the pitch at the time of the play, and is not included in that play or is not interfering in such play is not deemed as being a live player. There was a rule (once) that was specific to an attacking team as such whereas in a situation of an attacking play in the goal area of the opposing team and the rush forward results in one of the opposing attackers finished up behind the goal line, in order to not risk his teams chance at a goal, he would remain off the pitch thereby rendering himself ineligible for further play until a dead ball situation arose (ball crosses a line becomes a dead ball). Therefor I ask does not the same rule apply to the defending team, or are the rules so screwed up that nobody bothers to read them anymore, especially referees who need glasses.
Complain about this comment
All this talk of active and inactive is completely unecessary:
The law clearly states that there has to be at least 2 defenders between himself and the goal line.
In this instance there was only 1 player between RvN and the goal-line, namely Buffon. Pannuci was not between the attacker the goal line, but beyond the goal line.
Neither did Pannuci step beyond the goal line with the intention of rendering a player off-side, but was accidentally bundled offside by the goal-keeper, so the clause outlined in point 260 isn't valid.
The goal was offside, and shouldn't have counted.
Still, good to see the Italians get thumped.
Complain about this comment
If this is indeed the way this rule is to be interpreted, none of the Dutch defenders had a clue about it - if they'd known, this they wouldn't have all pushed out and left Van Nistelrooy in acres of space in the six yard box - I must admit, I didn't know about this rule, but then again I'm not getting paid 50 grand a week like these clueless muppets
Complain about this comment
223 -
c) The rules do not say anything about the ball having to move forward to the attacker. i.e. if the winger leaves a trail of defenders in his wake, and then cuts the ball back to a forward who does not have two defenders closer to the goal line, then the attacker is offside. This is the one that surprised me.
-------------------------------------------------
Yes it does :)
"A player is in an offside position if:
he is nearer to his opponents? goal line than
both the ball and the second last opponent"
http://www.thefa.com/NR/rdonlyres/095F9568-466D-4D71-ABF5-C1253A1C28FD/122272/FIFALaws2007_08_book.pdf
Page 25
Complain about this comment
This is clearly a goal.
It's very easy to mis-interpret the rules and get lost in misdirection and 'interpretation'.
However! If you follow the rules as they are written, then the goal is legitimate.
Many people have quoted this line from the rulebook:
A player is in an offside position if:
" He is nearer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent. "
This is clear and unambiguous and it's really all that matters.
I think where many people have 'gone wrong' on this particular incident is that they then go on to talk about Panucci being 'active' or 'inactive'.
This is totally irrelevant.
The interpretation of being 'active' only applies to the potentially offside player, - never defenders. (It is impossible for the last defending players on a team to be in an offside position.)
So in the final analysis, the only thing we have to decide upon is this:
Is Ruud Van Nistelroy closer to the goal line than both the ball and the second last defender?
The answer is No! - He is not! Panucci is lying on the ground nearer the goal-line. Whether Panucci is injured or not, is again, completely irrelevant.
Therefore it must be a goal.
Complain about this comment
Comment 138 by dpappas, best comment so far.
Absolutely spot on, common sense combined with a rule that is open t interpretation would have ruled the goal offside.
The important factor is that Panucci was clearly not trying t play a cunning offside trap and was not able t play an active role in the game hence the length of time that he was off the pitch.
Football is not a game that can be ruled in black and white (hence referee guidelines not rules)
Officials must make logical and sensible decisions as to whether a rule has been broken e.g. Deciding if a player has dived to try and gain an advantage and should be penalized or has dived out of the way of a dangerous tackle t prevent being injured.
Deciding that panucci was still active was the non logical and incorrect option just as deciding that a player has dived if he launches himself over a 2 footed tackle t avoid injury would be non logical and incorrect.
P.S. come on officials let's have some consistency.
Complain about this comment
The way I see it, it is just another Pimms moment!
Complain about this comment
Well Done Referee. Well done linesman.
Now can Hanson and Co give them some credit tonight please?
BTW - Why is everyone saying Pannuci was injured? He didn't looked injured as he ran 30 yards to remonstrate with the referee.
BTW 2 - If he was 'inactive' off the field then didn't he leave (and hence re-enter) the pitch without the referee's permission, itself a cautionable offence?
Complain about this comment
@StannOwl
Whatever the rule is the decision to allow this goal was against the spirit of fair play. Panucci was off the pitch injured. He did not deliberately step off the pitch to place RVN in an offside position and in fact his team were at a disadvantage because they were playing, or so they thought, with 10 men.
===============================
I dont really think the "spirit of fair play" can be brought out here considering the disgusting play acting and pathetic conning of the referees which goes on in virtually all top-level football matches these days.
Complain about this comment
This so called rule is absolutely ridiculous, if Panucci was judged to have been active does this mean that if a player is outside the stadium he is still active even though he is no where near the pitch???
I think this is just a cover for the assistant making a huge mistake as I am sure he would not have remembered this part of the rule.
Why can't they just accept that it was a horrible decision which partly cost Italy the game?
Complain about this comment
The existence of offside alone gives defenses another weapon to use. I don't see anything wrong with a law-extension that helps prevent them abuse it.
Complain about this comment
I believe the goal should be disallowed as Panucci is in all facts out of the game. To consider him actively playing is to me a bit unfair. Everyone has seen him being knocked out by Buffon; I believe referee and lineman as well.
As some as said the offside rule is set to prevent unfair play.
Or some think that Panucci is acting injured as he know that Van Nilsteroy will certainly score from there?
Complain about this comment
I have been reading a number of the comments and I must say that this is a great topic to debate. I have just thought of an example that show that clearly the ref was right and if you think about it, it happens all the time. here is the example I am thinking of.
Corners:
The ball is played in and the goal keeper and one full back is standing just behind the line to run on to any header he may need to make the centre forward is between the centre half and the keeper. Is the centre half offside no ! Is the full back active yes but he is off the field yes.
I know this is a bit long winded but it is true and it happens all the time.
Well done the ref and well done RVN.
Complain about this comment
If he'd been shot dead, would he be considered still part of the playing field and included as a last defender?
(Obviously, the ref would stop play if it were a head-shot, but what if went into his heart?)
Complain about this comment
"A player is in an offside position if he is nearer to his opponent's goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent."
OK, Devil's Advocate hat on here. If RvN was, say, 10 yards from the goal line and Panucci had rolled 11 yards BEHIND the goal line (off the pitch), then by a strict reading of the law, RvN would have been "nearer to the goal line" than Panucci and therefore offside!
I think that just goes to show that there is an element of interpretation in any referee's ruling and for anyone to say that "the law is there in black and white" is slightly disingenuous.
Complain about this comment
At first I thought this was clearly offside but now I see the explanations are correct. This situation is covered in FIFA Laws of the Game (in the www.fifa.com website) in the Additional Instructions and Guidelines for Referees section for Offside Law 11. It says:-
"If a defending player steps behind his own goal line in order to place an opponent in an offside position, the referee shall allow play to continue".........
Defenders cannot go off the field behind their goal line and expect that they don't count for offside otherwise this would be done all the time. In the case of this disputed goal then keeper is the second last defender and the off-field player is the last defender, so there was no offside, play continued and the goal was fair. Good decisions by the linesman and referee.
Complain about this comment
Ok, what has happened to interfering with play? Was Panucci interfering when he was lying off the pitch? I think not. Surely this rule should work both ways?
Complain about this comment
smithers90 - only applies to attackers, so a defender could be 30 yrads across the pitch and be playing an attacker on.
Complain about this comment
yeah Chrisypat, I like this:
"This so called rule is absolutely ridiculous, if Panucci was judged to have been active does this mean that if a player is outside the stadium he is still active even though he is no where near the pitch???"
Complain about this comment
Everyone here knows very well the goal was offside, anyone who claims it wasn't is a liar.
a: there is no reference to this rule on the UEFA website.
b: common sense dictates that a player laying down a metre off the pitch holding his face is definitely not active.
Anybody notice, the Dutch played Catennaccio? Defending and hitting on the break, for those here who don't understand football, which there seems quite a few.
Complain about this comment
Surely the decision was right.
if Van Nistelrooy had of sliced his effort then surely Panucci would of been able to get up and clear the ball therefore he must have been active.
Complain about this comment
If he'd been catapulted to the moon, he'd have been booked for unsporting astronaucy and the goal would have stood.
Complain about this comment
If Palucci off he is OFF,not on the field not in the game.
For me it is like passive offside.
Complain about this comment
Here is the official rules regarding this type of thing. No where in the rule book does it say what Keith Hacket is saying.
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/laws_of_the_game_0708_10565.pdf
"If a defending player steps behind his own goal line in order to place
an opponent in an offside position, the referee shall allow play to
continue and caution the defender for deliberately leaving the fi eld
of play without the referee?s permission when the ball is next out of
play.
It is not an offence in itself for a player who is in an offside position to
step off the fi eld of play to show the referee that he is not involved in
active play. However, if the referee considers that he has left the fi eld
of play for tactical reasons and has gained an unfair advantage by reentering
the fi eld of play, the player shall be cautioned for unsporting
behaviour. The player needs to ask for the referee?s permission to reenter
the fi eld of play."
It was not a goal because when the ball was passed forwards by an orange player to another orange player who was actively offside (he touched the ball) as he had only one blue player closer to the goal line than him.
The point centers on the interpretation of the rules that makes a defending player (apparently under any circumstance) considered to be active on the goal line regarding offside. Hence an attacking player is considered to be in an onside position if he has one further defender closer to the line.
I understand the use of this in circumstances where a player is on or around the goal line. There is a major problem otherwise of determining whether a player is on or off the field at any given point. That is why the referrees have made this interpretation. The problem we have in this case is that their is nothing in the official rules governing this situation and the refereeing guidline is simply what they see as a common sense practice. Now it is clear from comments on here that the common sense practice here would not allow a goal as the player was clearly off the field and inactive.
I wholeheartedly believe this situation needs clarified in the rules whereby it is up to the referee to determine if a player off the field is active still or not. The player here was clearly not thinking about offside issues as he lay off the field in pain, nor was any other player on the field. Van nistelroy clearly thought he was offside as did everyone else until supposed clarification from the Austrian official who clearly thought the announcment would make the issue less controversial.
the rule :-
"If a defending player steps behind his own goal line IN ORDER TO PLACE AN OPPONENT OFFSIDE -"
Still clearly indicats to me that behind the goal puts the forward potentially offside.
I think the reason for a player being injured or not is irrelevant here, except for the fact it was not a foul. Is play not stopped if a goalkeeper collides with his own player causing a potentially serious head knock? Or should play continue cause his own player caused the injury?
Complain about this comment
Why have no Chelsea fans pointed out that the ball didn't cross the line anyway?
Complain about this comment
It's all fairly simple really : what seemed a bad decision at first, turns out to be the correct one.
I would like to remind all the moaning Italians about the final qualifying match agains Scotland. They were awarded a free-kick which resulted in the winning goal, in injury time.
Why were they awarded the free kick? because as so often happens with the Italians, the player dived and deceived the ref ie cheated. In this case, it was the Scots player who was fouled.
The Dutchman in this game wasn't trying to pull a fast one over the ref. The rules were interpretted correctly. Let the Italians blub all they want to.
Complain about this comment
After 22 yrs as a ref,i am gobsmacked at this decision.Does this mean if the defender had rolled of the field of play Injured he is in fact keeping the attackers onside? What nonsense! As far as my training and interpretation of the off side law is that you have to be within the field of play to influence decisions.If the player rolled off intentionally to gain an advantage(he should be sacked for not knowing the laws of the game) should he not have been cautioned for unsporting behaviour or leaving the field of play without permission.No wonder players and spectators are confused .Ihave checked this law and nowhere does it state if you leave the field of play by default you are in fact still an active player.Hackett Sort it Out!!!!
Complain about this comment
If rules are rules, then the goal stands. yet i feel it is unfair on the Italians as Panucci was not in the field of play, and he simply didn't just step behind the line to play Ruud offside. He was bundled over before the Holland shot even came back in. the rule needs to be changed!!!
Complain about this comment
Graham Poll, on five live, said it wasn't a goal. Oh yeah, I forgot he's a complete idiot. Why do the BBC employ him?
Complain about this comment
it is goal because an italy player was behind the line
Complain about this comment
Please read "226" before anymore "it was offside" complaints.
IT WAS ONSIDE.
Complain about this comment
It's a strange situation, but I think the goal should have been allowed. Was the rule that declares a player who has stepped off the field of play intended to allow a situation like this? No. But as someone pointed out, the offsides rule wasn't intended to allow the offsides trap. Any set of rules will have odd exceptions that allow things that weren't intended - just as a defender re-entering the field of play illegally can't generate a penalty (as per an earlier YATR).
This seems to clearly be an oddity that is allowed, for better or for worse.
Complain about this comment
WHY DID LEE DIXON AND MOTD GET IT SO WRONG? ARE THEY ANTI-RUUD?
IF IT WAS AN ENGLISH PLAYER WHO WOULD HAVE SCORED IN THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES THEY WOULD HAVE ALL PULLED RANK AND BEEN SUPPORTIVE!
THE REFEREE IN MY OPINION GOT IT RIGHT LAST NIGHT AND HASN'T BEEN GIVEN ENOUGH CREDIT BY MOTD - (HACKETT HAS GOT IT RIGHT TO BY SUPPORTING HIM.)
FOR EXAMPLE:
ANOTHER SCENARIO:
WHAT IF PANUCCI HAD DECIDED TO STEP OUT OF THE FIELD OF PLAY (REGARDLESS OF INJURY, OR EVEN TO FEIGN INJURY) BUT SAW THAT "RUUD" WAS IN AN OFFSIDE POSITION AND STAYED OFF ON PURPOSE - OR EVEN STEPPED OFF THE FIELD OF PLAY WHILST ON IT - WHAT THEN?
MOTD NEED TO BE CLEAR ON THESE MATTERS - THEY DIDN'T THINK IT THROUGH.
(THEY STATED THE OBVIOUS)
Complain about this comment
good decision. in line with the rules whether you like the rule or not.
the more goals the better.
No excuse for Italy.
Holland could have had a penalty a short while beforehand as well.
lets face it, the score was 3-0 anyway. that's 3 goals to Holland and ZERO to Italy. Says it all to me whether Van the Man was offside or not
Complain about this comment
The rules are even crazier than you think and I don't think I have ever seen any pundit explain them. They are very clear and they are on the FIFA website. Read from page 102 onwards...
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/laws_of_the_game_0708_10565.pdf
Complain about this comment
Here's my take on the events.
Yes, Panucci was off the pitch but he had a geniune injury and therefore his abscence at the back was already disadvantaging the Italian's who had failed to deal with the freekick.
He was not trying to cheekily run off the pitch to play Ruud offside because he had been off the pitch for a few seconds when the goal had gone in!
Therefore why should the Italian's, or any team defending in this sort of scenario, be further disadvantaged by the offside rule being abandoned! It's ludicrous!
Yes I agree that people going off the pitch to play someone offside is wrong, but the guy had gone off the pitch well before the shot that fell to Van Nistleroy happened and as I already mentioned he was putting Italy at a disadvantage trying to defend anyway!
This rule, and the active passive rule really needs to be sorted out - it makes a mockery of football because I am baffled as how you can ever call a player 'passive' on a football pitch.
Also, for those giving the linesman credit, was this not the same linesman who bottled giving a goal kick when the ball was clearly kicked against an Italian attacker in the second half? He failed to overrule the referee who had a bad view and gave a corner even though it was clearly a goal kick.
Poor linesman that made a mistake and has been reprieved by a silly rule. Was definitely offisde!
Complain about this comment
291. If you are a proffesional ref, there is no hope of us getting things right in the game. May I suggest you read the rules before reffing another game. Particular attention to Section 11.11.
Complain about this comment
This so called rule is absolutely ridiculous, if Panucci was judged to have been active does this mean that if a player is outside the stadium he is still active even though he is no where near the pitch???
I think this is just a cover for the assistant making a huge mistake as I am sure he would not have remembered this part of the rule.
Why can't they just accept that it was a horrible decision which partly cost Italy the game?
________________________________
Complete nonsense.
The rules are there and have been there since before the tournament.
A player that leaves the field of play without the referees permission is considered active. Its very simple. Pannuci left without the referees permission so he is considered active from where he left the field, thereby playing van Nistelrooy onside. How he left the field is irrelevant unless you want referees to have to make even more incredibly tight and controversial decisions.
Complain about this comment
279 -
OK, Devil's Advocate hat on here. If RvN was, say, 10 yards from the goal line and Panucci had rolled 11 yards BEHIND the goal line (off the pitch), then by a strict reading of the law, RvN would have been "nearer to the goal line" than Panucci and therefore offside!
-------------------------------------------------------
A player who is outside the pitch is deemed to be ON the line at a point closest to where he is... Can't get closed to it that that!
Complain about this comment
By the letter of the law, the goal should stand so there can't be any complaints on that count, but I'm not sure that should be the case - it certainately seems like another case of the offside rule triumphing over common sense.
As I see it, if attackers in an offside position are ignored and therefore inactive providing they don't interfere with play then why should a defender, lying injured off the pitch, be considered to be interfereing with the play, thus playing Ruud onside.
I can see why this rule's in place - if it was the other way round then I have no doubt that some defenders would use it to their advantage but, in many ways, if you dealt with defenders on and off the pitch in the same way as attackers being 'active' and 'inactive' (ie it's the referee's and linesmen's decision as to whether the player in question could affect the play) then controvertial decisions such as this would be a lot less frequent.
Complain about this comment
278. therealluisgarcia wrote:
If he'd been shot dead, would he be considered still part of the playing field and included as a last defender?
------------
Depends on whether or not he's still breathing when Sneijder shoots!
Complain about this comment
bubney - post 284 - 'everyone who says it wasn't offside is a liar'.
I only just stopped short of reporting this as offensive. 'Liar' is a strong word - by all means join the debate and express your opinion but, please, not in this way.
Complain about this comment
It's in the interests of the tournament organisers that the result should look fair and square - rules are rules, yes, but I don't think anyone can look at this and say that the decision to let the goal stand was in the spirit of the laws of the game - Panucci could have no more influence on the proceedings than I could have had sitting in my living room
Complain about this comment
Rules exist to take subjectivity out of the decision making. If referees have to decide in a split second whether a rule applies to a certain situation or not then it just adds ambiguity and will lead to poor decision making. This subset of the offside rule was designed to stop defenders cheating. Although this was not exactly the intent in this situation, it is still a rule that must be followed at all times.
The officials, whether they knew it at the time or not, applied the rules of football correctly and the goal stands. As it should.
Complain about this comment
sbutler1988 wrote:
Yes, Panucci was off the pitch but he had a geniune injury and therefore his abscence at the back was already disadvantaging the Italian's who had failed to deal with the freekick.
_______________________________
If he had a "genuine injury" but was on the field of play RVN would have been onside. The rules are very clear, leaving the field means you stay active from the point you left the field. Pannuci was essentially on the field of play, his injury is irrelevant.
Complain about this comment
Its simple, i don't understand why its controversial!!
If any field OPPONENT is in front of the ATTACKING player, he is playing the ATTACKING player ONSIDE. Fullstop Standard!
If the defender slipped, was tying his shoelaces, or got knocked out, it doesnt matter, he is playing the ATTACKER ONSIDE!
Saying that a defender is not interefing with play is ridiculas, as it is his job to INTERFER when the opposition is attacking!
Ref got it right!
Complain about this comment
I understand why it was given, but agree that certain rules were added to enhance the viewing pleasure and the technical skill involved in the game, offside being one of them.
The offside law is confusing in that it states 'Closer to the line' as opposed to 'Between the last opposition player and the goal line', a player taking a a corner of throw could be closer to the line (I appreciate they wont be interferring with play)
Are we then to assume that if Pannucci had collided with Buffon and BOTH had fallen behind the goal line, but not in the goal, then when the subsequent shot and deflected goal came in it would have stood?
I think the law should be defined, allowing that any defender (or attacker) falling into the goal area can resume play and ermain active but anyone falling over the goal line and out of play must wait for either A) A dead ball situation, corner, freekick to reenter play or B) the referees permission.
How long have we been asking for an airtight offside law, any law open to interpretation ruins the game as we have so many different referees doing the 'interpreting'.
Complain about this comment
I was once eating paella at my nan's and I got a call from the ref saying I was still on the playing area and did I want treatment!
It was a goal then and it is now.
Complain about this comment
The discussion is about whether the goal should be allowed under the laws of the game - yes it was allowed, because the laws of the game say it was a good goal and RVN was not offside under the laws of the game.
The referee and his assistants are there to apply the laws of the game; not to decide whether the laws of the game are fair or not.
If they decided on their own decision of what was fair or not then football would collapse - anarchy would reign and there would be no world cup, no euro cup, no football at all.
The goal was good and the referees (all 3 of them because they are all equally qualified) got it exactly right.
the players got it wrong, the commentators and pundits got it wrong and most of the contributors to this blog have got it wrong.
Let's move on to the next game and stop slagging off the best team on the pitch - the referees.
Think of it this way...
There are 90 minutes of play and 22 players on the park.
At the most each player will have 4 minutes of so of active football when he is in contact with the ball (always allowing for the fact there are no stoppages and the ball is never out of play).
How many mistakes or bad tackles or missed shots does each player make for their huge salaries?
Quite a few!
The referees are involved for the whole 90 minutes - no breaks, no rests. Total involvement for the whole of the game.
And how many mistakes do they make?
Very few!
And in any event the referee's decision is final. So quit the arguing and get on with the game
Complain about this comment
Kieth Hackett's certainly cleared that one up. Good job the referees know the laws.. although it'd be interesting to know if that's what was going through their minds at the time of the decision!
And no BigTony - hockey no longer has an offside rule, which has been a fantastic addition to the game. Do away with it completely in football I say. It'll create a much more open and fast flowing game - the assumption is that a big guy will sit on the keeper and long balls in will become the norm, but that simply hasn't happened in hockey. It's certainly worth a trial in the lower leagues, anyway...
Complain about this comment
Well in the official rules p.64 it says "If a player accidentally crosses one of the boundary lines of the ?eld of play, he is not deemed to have committed an infringement. Going
off the ?eld of play may be considered to be part of a playing movement." So no off side then.
But what if he goes off accidentally and is injured. An injured player off the field is no longer part of play. So if Panucci would have been injured, I believe the correct ruling would have been off side!
Complain about this comment
markdared wrote:
Panucci could have no more influence on the proceedings than I could have had sitting in my living room
____________________________
Defenders cannot be considered inactive when considering offside decisions. As someone earlier said, if a defender was talking to his girlfriend by the corner flag he is not "active in play" yet is still playing players onside. Similarly if he was injured.
In no way can Pannuci be considered to have been inactive.
Complain about this comment
Definately offside.
Panucci was in no way affecting the game and was in no way active or of benefit to the Italians.
Another terrible decision by an official in a tournament that is the second biggest in the world at international level. Pathetic. Sort it out FIFA.
Complain about this comment
Surely if the ball crosses the line it is "out-of-play" then why doesnt this work for a player who has accidentally been taken "out-of-play"?
really don't understand this...another stupid rule made by fifa to join the list
Complain about this comment
There are two things to consider here - and they tend to get mixed up. Firstly - did the ref make the correct decision? It looks as though he did....although it would be good to ask Kieth Hackett where this special situation is covered in the Laws of the Game.
The second question - which for me is the more important - is what is the sense of the rule? Is it to stop defenders deliberately walking off the field of play to make an attacker off-side? Well that has an element of good sense about it.
In the actual incident the Italy defender who got clobbered by his goalkeeper had no intent to leave the field of play - and had no intent to play VN offside.
Yet again these badly drafted rules make it possible to make any decision you want.
It's not down to the refs here - it's down to the people who take good ideas and draft bad laws. There shold be a compliance committee in FIFA made who stress test the laws and amendments to make sure interpretation and amiguity are minimised - and that they can be understood by normal human beings.
If there already is one - they should all be sacked.!!!
Complain about this comment
One of FIFA's guiding principles is "can a rule be applied consistently throughout the game". It's much easier to apply this one consistently - it avoids interminable discussions about what constitutes "injured", and "Active", and therefore I think their clarification will err on the side of the attacking team - it's just simpler that way and harder to abuse by "simulation"
Complain about this comment
A player isn't entitled to leave the field of play without the referee's permission, and doing so merits a yellow card. If they have left with the referee's permission, they must then be waved back into play by the ref.
The exception to this is when their momentum takes them outside of the playing area, in which case they are still deemed to be 'in play' and which -- clearly and sensibly -- doesn't require the referee to give them permission to return to the boundaries.
Panucci was not given permission to leave the pitch, he would not have needed permission to return had the goal not been scored. Had the goal been disallowed for offside, the referee would have had to book Panucci for leaving the field of play without permission -- which would have been an even more bizarre situation, and one which would be unfair to both sides.
A fair goal, no doubt about it.
Complain about this comment
This arguement is valid only if the player deliberately stepped out of the pitch to make The Van off side. This was not the case here. I would understand the decision if the player had fallen behind the goal line inside the net, in which case I would consider the player active.
Complain about this comment
therealluisgarcia - i know that the "interfering" rule only applies to attackers but I am questioning it. I think this incident highlights the mockery that is the current offside rule. If a defender is off the pitch perhaps he could be said to be passive, not interfering and therefore not "active" for the purposes of offside.
Complain about this comment
Everything points to a correct decision and I do believe in the heat of the moment the linesman could well be aware of his decision according to the law, what he was doing, why and the implications. I know my initial reaction was that he was onside and I knew why, and I'm not a pro (or even an amateur)!
However, one angle Italy could claim a grievance from is that Panucci was holding his head. If he was to be considered on the field of play then the guidelines suggest play be stopped. If the reason play wasn't stopped was because the referee decided he was off the field of play then the goal should have been disallowed.
The referee and linesman needed to speak together and exchange interpretations of the situation. If the linesman made his decision on Panucci being active but the referee considered him inactive, then the referee could have asked the linesman to reconsider his position.
Great linesman decision, poor refereeing. Unless the referee considered him play acting, of course. However, I don't think he did.
Complain about this comment
I agree if he was on the field he would have played RVN onside, but he wasn't on he field!
He had got off the field so he didn't play him onside!
If he was on the floor, his teammates would have seen this and then held a deeper line, but because he was off the pitch, they pushed up and out.
Furthermore, he could have easily stayed on the pitch rolled around and got the Dutch to kick it out so he could get medical attention!
I appreciate the rules are rules, but they need to be changed - that's what I'm saying. Referees need to use a bit more discretion and common sense at times too - again as I said, the linesman got the offisde call wrong imo, he didn't know the rule and got lucky.
Complain about this comment
The "Pannucci was not interfering with play" argument doesn't stand up. If Panucci was knocked over 2 yards closer to the goal and was on the pitch, then RVN would have been clearly onside and this debate would not even be happening. But Panucci would be no more 'active' or 'interfering with play' than he was when he was off the pitch. Does that 2 yards really make so much difference? No. He was involved in the passage of play so he was active, whether on the pitch or 2 yards off.
Complain about this comment
magogofacts wrote:
This arguement is valid only if the player deliberately stepped out of the pitch to make The Van off side. This was not the case here. I would understand the decision if the player had fallen behind the goal line inside the net, in which case I would consider the player active.
___________________________________
You are reading the wrong rule.
If a player steps off deliberately play continues and the player is booked.
If a player steps off by accident he is still active but not booked.
It is very simple.
Complain about this comment
I thought the field of play ended at the goal line
Complain about this comment
I can't help but note all these "But Panucchi was genuinely and seriously injured, out for the count and on the verge of death!" comments.
Was he substituted out before the following kick-off, or did he get up and continue playing?
All that aside, I still disagree that falling over the goal line renders a player "inactive". By that logic the goalkeeper could trip backwards over his own goal line and temporarily not be counted for the purposes of offside during any pass made before he gets back up.
Complain about this comment
, sbutler1988 wrote:
I agree if he was on the field he would have played RVN onside, but he wasn't on he field!
He had got off the field so he didn't play him onside!
__________________________________
If he left the field on purpose he should have been booked.
If he left by accident the correct decision was made.
Complain about this comment
If the referee has not indicated that a player is injured, then officially that player is still part of the game. Otherwise what would prevent a defender from simply stepping out of the playing area, thereby rendering attacking players offside?
Complain about this comment
If they change the rules, the inconsistencies and injustices would be even worse - either scrap the offside rule completely, or accept this as a rare anomaly.
smithers - total respect for your view - I'm just pointing out the morass of inconsistent decisions that will corrupt the game even more if defenders were judged "interfering" or "not interfering" in teh same way that attackers are. Expect defenders going down clutching "injuries" whenever a through-ball l ooks like putting a striker through.
Complain about this comment
I think you should read the small print. The rule says it is no off side if the player deliberately steps behind the line to put an opponent offside. However: if the defender get behind the line due to an incident not of his own will and is down so he does not take part in the game, it is off side! This was the case with the Italian defender who collided with his own goalkeeper.
Complain about this comment
You should all be asking yourself, If that goal had not been giving, do you think Holland would have been as motivated as they were last night.
I believe if Holland had not scored early enough they would have self destructed and the Italian would have won just 1-0.
The contraversial goal made that game the greatest game of the tournament so far.
Complain about this comment
Rules seem quite clear on this so goal stands. I, like just about everyone, didnt know this rule but Nistlerooy did so good on him (according to what Kuyt said in interview).
To bigtonywhite
There hasnt been offside in hockey for years but when there was there was uncertainty about it especially at penalty corners (where the goalie and defenders start off the field of play behind the goal line). I have defended such a corner where we decided not to cross the line and scream "offside" when the attacker pushed the ball forward to another attacker. The ref bought it-although I'm not convinced he was right! It also had inherent risks ie giving them time to undercut the ball at the 5 of us huddled in a 12 foot goal!!
Complain about this comment
All that aside, I still disagree that falling over the goal line renders a player "inactive". By that logic the goalkeeper could trip backwards over his own goal line and temporarily not be counted for the purposes of offside during any pass made before he gets back up.
----------
Ok, how about when a striker lurks ten yards offside, ball gets played through, winger runs onto the ball and then the striker who was ten yards offside taps it in. A la RVN against the Czechs at Euro 2004 and like what Henry does.
Surely that player is active then when the first ball is played through like when Panucci is off the pitch holding his leg?
Why is it ok at one end of the pitch but not the other? Rules need to be fair, just and make sense. The offside rule doesn't. Even defenders don't know what's offside or not so how can they possibly try and play a striker offside?
Complain about this comment
The rule is stupid. In fact, the tinkering with the offside rule over the years has made it more and more ridiculous - the passive/impassive, active/inactive, in line witht the last defender....
FIFA and UEFA have taken what used to be a fairly easy to understand rule and made it so complicated that only biopphysicists graduating from Oxford or Cambridge with BSc honours can come close to fathoming it out.
So much for the Theory of Relativity - what about the offside rule!?!?
So, Panucci was off the field of play, but was still considered 'active' (rubbish rule, be honest). What if he was off the field injured awaiting treatment? The ref does not have to stop the play as the player is 'off the field' already, but at what point does he cease to be 'active' and begin to be injured (therefore 'inactive')?
What if he where near to the corner flag rather than the goal - would he still be 'active'?
There are so many 'what if's' that remove the rug from under this clearly obvious and easy to understand 'rule' that it is amazing no one has raised these before.
Or, perhaps they have but, in the ivory tower that is FIFA world these concerns fell on deaf ears.
Fans, managers and players just want to have clarity- to eb able to say 'I know why this or that happened' - all too often they just sit back and wonder 'well, was that right or not'. And when the logic is explained we're still none the wiser and poorer for it.
Thanks FIFA, for fiddling with the 'beautiful' game - it's just sliding towards a proper mess.
Complain about this comment
@ Scollachi
Because even if a player is off the pitch, he could run back on and make a tackle or affect the following passage of play in some other way. When the ball goes out the game stops, when a player moves off the pitch the game continues regardless, so they could still interfere, so they are still active.
Complain about this comment
With hindsight, i totally agree that the goal should stand. Grey areas when refereeing only makes a difficult job harder. Therefore black and white scenairios are for the greater good.
If there was nothing stopping the defender coming back on when ready then to me there is no difference as to whether he was on the pitch or not.
What if he had missed a sliding tackle and went off the pitch? or as others have pointed out to create an off side position. How about if a player has gone done supposedly hurt but is still on the pitch?
For avoiding grey areas, a simple ruling that a player is active until carried/escorted off works. As such they need permission to become active again.
A player deciding to be active or not by being on the pitch or not would lead to abuse by players. For those who disagree, look at the divers and actors in the game.
If the incident was further away, potentially the defender could have got up, got on the pitch and made a tackle/block ,,,this would then be hard lines to the dutch?
Having a grey zone containing complex "ifs" surely would convolute and cause more cases to be argued.
Simple black and white makes sense to me and it simply goes down to "is the player active?" and this is decided by if the player has caused a stoppage to the game .
Complain about this comment
sbutler1988 wrote:
I appreciate the rules are rules, but they need to be changed - that's what I'm saying. Referees need to use a bit more discretion and common sense at times too - again as I said, the linesman got the offisde call wrong imo, he didn't know the rule and got lucky.
__________________________________
Discretion and common sense don't come into this. The rule is there and is very simple and obvious. If 'common sense' had to be used there would be all sorts of different interpretations, how would a referee decide whether the player was pretending to be injured or not? How would he decide whether he had left the field on purpose?
Currently the referee doesn't have to make these decisions to decide whether it was a goal or not, he just has to book the player who left the field or not, the goal always stands.
Imagine for a moment the situation where Pannuci was rushing back to the goal line, say he tripped and fell over the line before the inital shot came in, should van Nistelrooy be offside?
Complain about this comment
If the goal did not stand, you would probably start getting the odd DIVING DEFENDERS to pretend they are injured if they cant get to the ball, hence playing the attacker OFFSIDE. It would be ridicules!!!!
Clearly ONSIDE!
Ref got it right
Complain about this comment
All that aside, I still disagree that falling over the goal line renders a player "inactive". By that logic the goalkeeper could trip backwards over his own goal line and temporarily not be counted for the purposes of offside during any pass made before he gets back up.
-------------------------------
That 'example' fails as the goalie isn't included in any determination as to whether an attacker is offside or not - otherwise almost every 'offside' would not be 'offside'.
Complain about this comment
tonymaloneysbriefs -
In that situation, yes, he was being active by trying to defend. Therefore RVN was not offisde.
He was on the floor, off the pitch, was NEVER going to rush back on to make a block and therefore was inactive.
Here I'm using my discretion to apply a 'rule' to the game of football. Surely that's simpler than a one policy fits all rule that doesn't even make sense?
Complain about this comment
342 - The goalie is included if he's the last defender, or the second last defender, but not if he is up the other end. Doesn't matter who the last and second last defenders are - they could be two of the defending team's forwards.
Complain about this comment
If the goal did not stand, you would probably start getting the odd DIVING DEFENDERS to pretend they are injured if they cant get to the ball, hence playing the attacker OFFSIDE. It would be ridicules!!!!
Clearly ONSIDE!
Ref got it right
----------------------------------
No, it would not - not really.
Watching the Panucci incident only an idiot would claim he 'dived' - it was a clear and obvious collision and could have resulted in a bad injury.
Most people can tell when a player dives (although many ref's seem very unwilling to show cards for 'simulation').
Funny that, the ref applies a very obscure intepretation to a confusing rule, yet a clear FIFA dictate to clamp down on 'diving' is largely ignored.
Complain about this comment
sbutler - what if he'd been capable of making it back, but just decided he'd have no chance, so stayed off the pitch?
Complain about this comment
Charlie Cooke Should've Been My Dad wrote:
The rule is stupid. In fact, the tinkering with the offside rule over the years has made it more and more ridiculous - the passive/impassive, active/inactive, in line witht the last defender....
...
___________________________________
This is a very simple rule. Defenders are never, ever passive, unless they have the referees permission to leave the field. Panucci didn't have permission so he is considered active.
Complain about this comment
Law 11 actually states that there must be at least 2 players level or between the attacking player and the GOAL LINE (I looked it up just now - it's not changed). This seems to contradict Mr. Hackett's interpetation, unless you count the distance Panucci was the other side of the line and equate that with Van Nistleroy's position, but I doubt that that went through the Assistant Referee's mind.
Is this not just another case of the the Authorities creating an interpretation in order to make them look right? No wonder nobody knows the Laws of the Game.
Complain about this comment
For my money he is still part of the game so the goal should stand.
But don't you just love philosophical debate about obscure rules!
If I can extrapolate slightly...
Forward A in an onside position, forward B in an offside position (but not immediately influencing play)
A few scenarios...
A shoots straight in - goal as B is not active
A shoots, it hits the post and rebounds to B who scores - offside, B now becomes active
Now introduce a defender C lying prone (having collided with his GK) 2 inches behind the goalline between the posts.
A shoots and the ball rebounds off C (but hasn't fully crossed the goalline) to B who scores.
Some people on here have been arguing that B would still be offside - I don't see how you can say that as C has most definitely influenced play by preventing a goal, albeit perhaps unknowingly!
Complain about this comment
Charlie Cooke Should've Been My Dad wrote:
No, it would not - not really.
Watching the Panucci incident only an idiot would claim he 'dived' - it was a clear and obvious collision and could have resulted in a bad injury.
Most people can tell when a player dives (although many ref's seem very unwilling to show cards for 'simulation').
Funny that, the ref applies a very obscure intepretation to a confusing rule, yet a clear FIFA dictate to clamp down on 'diving' is largely ignored.
______________________________
It is not obscure and it is not confusing. It is very, very clear and simple.
Players are active unless the referee has let them leave the field of play.
The fact that panucci was injured is completely irrelevant.
Complain about this comment
If the goal did not stand, you would probably start getting the odd DIVING DEFENDERS to pretend they are injured if they cant get to the ball, hence playing the attacker OFFSIDE. It would be ridicules!!!!
Clearly ONSIDE!
Ref got it right
-------
Rubbish!
Why would a defender dive off the pitch - surely he would be more keen to make a tackle / block to stop the goal. That's the last thing on a defenders mind to get off the pitch to break up an attack!
Plus, then the referee can use his DISCRETION to adjudge that the player is play acting.
Also, what about if Panucci was down earlier behind the goal and the offisde call happened near the halfway line?
Yes, he could have got back up to tacke him, but then he is entering the pitch without the referee's permission so a yellow card and indirect freekick. But at the same time, there was no way he could have quickly ran off the pitch to play someone offside when he was defending near the halfway line.
Complain about this comment
I think older bloggers may remember that we've been here before, but I forget the exact details.
I qualified as a referee in 1973 and shortly afterwards there was an incident in a first division game when a defender's momentum carried him over his own goal-line as he missed a tackle. He then decided not to come back on, and appealed for offside against a player in the centre of the goal.
The ruling as I recall it was that a player who leaves the field is deemed to be standing at the point on the line where he left it.
It would be ridiculous to caution the guy in those circumstances or require him to get permission to come back on, as some here have suggested, otherwise we'd have to do that every time a player took a throw-in, when, by definition, he must be behind the line and therefore off the pitch when he throws in.
The caution is designed for the player who goes off deliberately for whatever reason.
Complain about this comment
vedaman wrote:
Law 11 actually states that there must be at least 2 players level or between the attacking player and the GOAL LINE (I looked it up just now - it's not changed). This seems to contradict Mr. Hackett's interpetation, unless you count the distance Panucci was the other side of the line and equate that with Van Nistleroy's position, but I doubt that that went through the Assistant Referee's mind.
Is this not just another case of the the Authorities creating an interpretation in order to make them look right? No wonder nobody knows the Laws of the Game.
__________________________________
Panucci is considered active from the point he left the field i.e. the goal line so he is technically between the player and the goal.
Complain about this comment
Out of interest, before the 'inactive attacker' rule change was added, does this mean that any goal scored while an attacker was behind the goal line somewhere would be ruled out for offside? So for example a winger who runs to the byline, crosses it in and then ends up hurdling the advertising boards while his striking partner scores (as we have seen thousands of times) should used to have been ruled offside (based on when the striker kicks the ball), and the goal disallowed (unless a defender goes with him and also crosses the line to keep him onside).
Complain about this comment
The law 11.11 is very clear - if he's off the pitch by accident, he's counted as being on the line (ie on the pitch)for the purposes of counting defenders in an offside interpretation.
Complain about this comment
In these circumstances the attacker is offside unless the defender leaves the pitch seeking an advantage according to the latest text of Law 11.
Had the referee deemed that the defender lying prostrate out of the playing area had left the field seeking an advantage, the player should have been cautioned.
This is a mistake by the officials, in particular the assistant not raising his flag nothing more.
Complain about this comment
Some people on here have been arguing that B would still be offside - I don't see how you can say that as C has most definitely influenced play by preventing a goal, albeit perhaps unknowingly!
-------------
But can't we use discretion - i.e. if the guy is 2 inches behind the goalline that makes him active in play. If he is 2 yards off the pitch to one side of the goal, he is not active.
Your example is flawed because the guy is active when he stops a shot, obvious!
Complain about this comment
I cannot believe that people are still posting comments saying 'it was obviously a mistake and should have been offside' and 'it needs to be black and white'.
IT IS BLACK AND WHITE!!! IT'S JUST THAT, LIKE MANY SO CALLED EXPERTS, YOU JUST HAVEN'T BOTHERED TO ACTUALLY LEARN THE LAWS BEFORE COMMENTING!!!
See post 262 above for the CLEAR BLACK-AND-WHITE definition of this situation.
There's one thing to comment on your opinion of whether this law should be changed (I happen to think it's fine just as it is) but when the officials have got it SOOOO RIGHT in the big game, it's disheartening to have so many saying that they got it wrong and FIFA are just 'covering up'.
Complain about this comment
No, it would not - not really.
Watching the Panucci incident only an idiot would claim he 'dived' - it was a clear and obvious collision and could have resulted in a bad injury.
----------------------------------------
Im not saying he dived, but the scenario would lead to those sorts of situations if the goal did not stand.
how would a referee decide whether the player was pretending to be injured or not? How would he decide whether he had left the field on purpose? These are decisions as the current rules stand the REF does not have to even think about. It would only complicate things more and make the game more harder for the ref!
Complain about this comment
sbutler1988 wrote:
Rubbish!
Why would a defender dive off the pitch - surely he would be more keen to make a tackle / block to stop the goal. That's the last thing on a defenders mind to get off the pitch to break up an attack!
Plus, then the referee can use his DISCRETION to adjudge that the player is play acting.
Also, what about if Panucci was down earlier behind the goal and the offisde call happened near the halfway line?
Yes, he could have got back up to tacke him, but then he is entering the pitch without the referee's permission so a yellow card and indirect freekick. But at the same time, there was no way he could have quickly ran off the pitch to play someone offside when he was defending near the halfway line.
____________________________________
A yellow card is only given if the player stepped off deliberately to cause a player to be considered offside.
Complain about this comment
Most of the comments so far seem to boil down a demand that defenders who have been down injured for all of the current phase of play, whether on or off the field of play should not be considered for evaluation of Offside.
So the question now is how we decide whether a player is injured or not? Maybe if a player does the 'Team America Secret Signal' he's then considered 'inactive' at the start of the next phase of play, and must be invited back onto the field again by the referee....
... at the very least, that'd make the game a bit funnier...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
And re-entering the field without the referee's permission :-)
Complain about this comment
ch21ss wrote:
Out of interest, before the 'inactive attacker' rule change was added, does this mean that any goal scored while an attacker was behind the goal line somewhere would be ruled out for offside? So for example a winger who runs to the byline, crosses it in and then ends up hurdling the advertising boards while his striking partner scores (as we have seen thousands of times) should used to have been ruled offside (based on when the striker kicks the ball), and the goal disallowed (unless a defender goes with him and also crosses the line to keep him onside).
__________________________________
Haha, good question.
There seems to be so little agreement on this simle discussion that bringing in a more complicated example would cause peoples' heads to explode.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
365 -
If he'd flagged, Dirk would have sorted him out with a Goodison Special, so maybe he was scared,
Complain about this comment
So if a defender gets injured and is down on the floor, he is penalised for getting of the pitch so the game can continue?
Would you rather he lies around and the game has to stop, on comes the physio etc. By rolling off he can get treatment whilst the game continues, which surely is a good thing. Even though he is getting penalised playing everybody onside?
It makes no sense.
So under the rules: Panucci would have been better rolling towards the half-way line so that he wasn't play everybody offisde - which would have been stupid.
The rule needs to be changed!
Complain about this comment
I really think we should drop the active / inactive offside bit. It seems a bit silly that a player sitting on his bum off the pitch is active, but a forward stood 10 feet from the player who scores the goal isn't. Go for the Brian Clough offside rule. "If you're not interfering with play what are you doing on the pitch". Any player who leaves the field of play should be considered active until the next break in play. So under this rule the Dutch goal would still have stood.
A lot easier and fairer I think.
Complain about this comment
*everybody onside, sorry
Complain about this comment
The rule may be silly but not half as silly as the players getting booked for dissent arguing about it. Never in the history of the world has a ref changed a decision because a player told him to, though there is a chance FIFA may change the offside rule again.
Complain about this comment
As a matter of interest all the advice to referees is available at this web address
http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/Advice%20Final%20Aug2007.pdf
11.11 is the relevant part as mentioned by others.
to 354
it's the player scoring the goal whose position is important not the winger's. Also in that situation the striker would almost certainly be behind the ball when it was played and thus cannot be offside. That's why it's so dangerous for a winger to get to the byeline, the other strikers don't have to worry about offside anymore.
It's also the reason the first, I think, Germany goal was not offside as the player coming onto the pass was behind the ball when it was played. It's also what makes that clever Cryuff penalty work, each time the player is behind the ball when it is played.
Complain about this comment
I'm off to watch Torres not get injured please.
I reckon they should decide these as and when they happen, so no-one's sure enough to try and "work" the system.
Complain about this comment
pompey4europe:
You didn't understand the point. He was saying that if a winger was off the pitch after the crossing the ball, he should be deemed (under the rule for defenders) to be on the goal line. Hence, a header at goal would then make the winger off the pitch offside.
Complain about this comment
Thank god for the offside rule. Understanding it always was something that made the men stand out from the boys.
Complain about this comment
That was before they brought in "not interfering with play"
Complain about this comment
A player active in the game (i.e. not a nominated sub or somebody who has been subbed off) who goes off the field is there under one of three circumstances:
a) He is injured, and has BEEN GIVEN PERMISSION or ORDERED to leave the field by the referee,
b) He is off the edge of the field as the result of a football movement.
c) He has intentionally left the field without the referee's permission.
Under a) the player is, of course no longer considered part of the play until given permission to re-enter at the halfway line
Under b) the player is, for all intents and purposes still on the field.
KEY POINT:
Remember that Panucci was still free to run back on the field and tackle Nistelrooy or clear off the line.
Under c) the player has broken the rules and must receive a yellow card, leaving the field of play without the referee's permission is one of the seven cautionable offences (in PUDDLER it's 'L').
Panucci was clearly under the circumstances of the 'b' category, whether he was in pain or not has no real bearing.
Oh, and Giovanni, the idea that this is a situation we see all the time truly came out of left-field! I don't think I've ever seen this before, and I watch a deplorable amount of football!
Complain about this comment
367. sbutler1988 wrote:
So under the rules: Panucci would have been better rolling towards the half-way line so that he wasn't play everybody onisde - which would have been stupid.
------------
But it would have been hilarious!
Complain about this comment
I`ts always the poor old officals you get it in the neck... The decision was correct and the team of officals should get 10 out of 10
Complain about this comment
Remember when you were small and kicking a ball around with your mates. There was always one little squirt who could barely stand up without falling over and got upset because he couldn't get a kick of the ball.
That was the point at which your Mum stepped in and insisted everyone 'play nicely' and 'take turns having a kick'. Result was a happy squirt for about five minutes until all your mates decided they were bored and went home, so no-one played.
Just because some people can't understand the slightly more complicated situations covered under the laws of association football, they want key aspects such as forwards being 'active' taken out.
Result would be everyone understanding a game that nobody wanted to play or talk about any more. If that's what you want, try Ludo (and I'm not talking about West Ham's top man of a few years ago!!) and leave the exciting games to those capable of understanding them and genuinely debating the pros and cons of laws and interpretations.
Complain about this comment
Oops. Please disregard the last sentence, I copied and pasted this from my own post on another web forum!
Complain about this comment
Unbelievable.
Having referee'd for many a year I have never heard of such an interpretation.
Now it is the case that the waters have been muddied even more.
By the Italian player being off of the field (and in this case apparantly injured) he is not in anyway active in the game. That leaves just one other player, the goalkeeper between the attacking player and the goal....
That then, is quite clearly OFFSIDE!!!!
Complain about this comment
Not for the first time I am at odds with Mr. Hachett, but he is missing the major point
- that Panucci was not active
- he did not actively step out of play to make van Nestilrooij off-side:
van Nestilrooy was therefore offside
Complain about this comment
i think its a good rule to be honest just cos your on the other side of the pitch line doesnt mean you cant be involved, if a player walked off the pitch and punched other player would be say he cant be sent off cos he's off the pitch? no we wouldn't cos its still in the boundary of the pitch same as a player whos down on the sideline.
Complain about this comment
It's difficult to determine. Obviously the rules state that the player off the pitch is still playing him onside, but is he interfering with play? Obviously the pundits last night didn't think so.
But then again look at it from another angle. That cheeky goal that we all can recollect, the one where the stands behind the goal-line to steal the ball away from the keeper, it's the same principle. Is the player looking to gain an advantage? Of course he is. Panucci wasn't off the pitch for treatment last night, only momentarily off the pitch because he was floored by his keeper. If he had got up, ran back onto the pitch and cut out the cross, would we be complaining that he should have stayed off the field of
play?
The answer is clearly no, so therefore, even though he's not seeking to gain an advantage, the goal should stand because Panucci isn't out of the action.
Complain about this comment
It's difficult to determine. Obviously the rules state that the player off the pitch is still playing him onside, but is he interfering with play? Obviously the pundits last night didn't think so.
But then again look at it from another angle. That cheeky goal that we all can recollect, the one where the striker stands behind the goal-line to steal the ball away from the keeper, it's the same principle. Is the player looking to gain an advantage? Of course he is. Panucci wasn't off the pitch for treatment last night, only momentarily off the pitch because he was floored by his keeper. If he had got up, ran back onto the pitch and cut out the cross, would we be complaining that he should have stayed off the field of
play?
The answer is clearly no, so therefore, even though he's not seeking to gain an advantage, the goal should stand because Panucci isn't out of the action.
Complain about this comment
sbutler1988 wrote:
So if a defender gets injured and is down on the floor, he is penalised for getting of the pitch so the game can continue?
Would you rather he lies around and the game has to stop, on comes the physio etc. By rolling off he can get treatment whilst the game continues, which surely is a good thing. Even though he is getting penalised playing everybody onside?
It makes no sense.
So under the rules: Panucci would have been better rolling towards the half-way line so that he wasn't play everybody offisde - which would have been stupid.
The rule needs to be changed!
_________________________________
The rule doesn't need to be changed. If Panucci rolled off on purpose he would be guilty of unsporting conduct. Why is it the attacking players fault that the defender is injured?
Whether defenders are injured or not they are always active in play unless the referee has allowed them to leave the field.
The decision was right, the rule is good.
Complain about this comment
The rule
"A player is in an offside position if he is nearer to his opponents? goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent."
Does that mean if Panucci got up and ran into the crowd, he'd being playing Van Nistelrooy into an offside position because he would be further away from the line than him?
If this is the case, it will make for some very interesting tactics at corners next season!
Complain about this comment
if Ruud had hit the post (although from that distance it's highly unlikely) and panucci ran back onto the pitch to clear the ball, noone would have said anything
it's only that he scored, that everyone thinks the rule's rubbish.
there's no question whatsoever that van nistelrooy was onside
Complain about this comment
This rule was brought in to stop fowards walking off the pitch, waiting for a long ball to be punted to them and then walking back on to the pitch straight after to avoid being offside. This was often done at corners, a striker would stand just off the pitch, wait for the cross and then step back on to poach a goal.
The same applies in the opposite direction, defenders can't just step off the pitch to suddenly make forwards offside. If Panucci had be knocked down by the keeper in the 6 yard box, he would have counted as being active and the case is the same if he ends up just off the pitch.
Complain about this comment
Panucci was so injured he was able to moan about the decision almost immedietely. The Refs got one perfectly correct for once.
As for those saying why didn't Panucci get booked, read the rules, you only get booked for entering the field of play without the refs permission after being ordered from the field. As Panucci went off accidently he is allowed back on without punishment.
Goal was correct, as Panucci was technically on the goal line when Sneijder crossed the ball. Strikers like Ruud, and Inzaghi for all the Italian sympathisers out there, know these little nuances of the rules.
Complain about this comment
re 247, Yorkshireref, afraid i don't agree with you, and neither did the commentators or the tv pundits, at the time everybody thought it was offside, and the official line about the goal being legitamate didnt get released till 12.00 today when the powers that be had had time to study the rule book, if it was such a good decision, how come none of the "expert" pundits cited the rule, everyone thought it was offside. On this occasion the refs official got lucky.
Complain about this comment
the offside rule is now a joke.
Pannuci did not leave the pitch to gain an unfair advantage or to put van nistelroy offside, he left the pitch because he was on the ground in pain.
The interpretation (and it is an INTERPRETATION) of the law conveniently used by UEFA to cover themselves (because UEFA will never admit a mistake) was made to avoid last defenders leaving the pitch BY CHOICE to put the receiving forward offside.
UEFA has long ago lost any credibility when it comes to respecting the spirit of the game. 22 professional footballers including the Dutch and millions of spectators immediately ruled the goal offside. Why would some bureaucrat in an office in Nyon know better?
There is no way the linesman , in the heat of the moment, would have had the time to make the assumption UEFA is referring too. This is just a cover up.
Complain about this comment
dmarcs2K. UEFA, Mr Hackett and many others have pointed out the clear and unambiguous FIFA text that shows that this decision was correct.
See post 262 above for the full monty.
As a referee, I hope you are not the 'I am always right' variety but are instead able to accept that you don't know everything and, sometimes, situations arise that enable you to increase your knowledge.
This is clearly one of those times. If this happens in a game you are covering next season and you still give it as offside, then there is a problem.
Complain about this comment
Pannuci was flattened by his own goalkeeper as he never asked the referee for permission to leave the pitch he is still an active player. GOAL STANDS!!!!
Probably the best decision made by an assistant referee in history. (Just behind Geoff Hursts goal in the 1966 final).
Anyway Italy was out played and out classed by a fantastic Dutch side.
Complain about this comment
389, actually The_unwilling this rule was brought in to stop defenders stepping off the field when under attack and placing the opposing forewards offside.
Complain about this comment
You've got to realise also, if Panucci had fallen into the goal itself, he would have attempted to play the ball, and stop it crossing the goal line - in which case italian fans would have been praising his vision etc, and would have been less concerned with whether or not RVN was offside. If Toni had scored similarly, there certainly would be no room for debate. According to the letter of the law, the goal should stand, good. Let's get on with it, now defenders will know they can't benefit from simulation in similar situations in the future. The Italians were outplayed overall, and I dont think it would have changed the result even if the goal had incorrectly been struck off.
Complain about this comment
Much deserved victory for Holland though, the second goal was a classic, viva la orange!
Complain about this comment
The goal is a good goal, a player cannot leave the field of play without the referees permission.
It cannot be any other way or a player would fake going off the field just to stop an attacking player being offside.
It was unfortunate for the Italians, but thats the rule and thats football.
Complain about this comment
birdcharmer wrote:
re 247, Yorkshireref, afraid i don't agree with you, and neither did the commentators or the tv pundits, at the time everybody thought it was offside, and the official line about the goal being legitamate didnt get released till 12.00 today when the powers that be had had time to study the rule book, if it was such a good decision, how come none of the "expert" pundits cited the rule, everyone thought it was offside. On this occasion the refs official got lucky.
__________________________________
I knew when the goal was scored that it was the right decision. The fact that "expert" pundits didn't know doesn't mean that the decision was wrong. Pundits are there to give their opinions on the game not the referees technical decisions.
RTE in Ireland contacted two FIFA approved ex-world cup officials about it and both said it was a good goal, the pundits when told about the rule agreed it was the correct decision.
Complain about this comment
- 362
'Dirty Italians', bet u wouldn't shout that in Rome
May I remind who the current World champions are.
I suppose you r English so may I remind you that Englands manager is Italian and that the English apprached him cos of his success in Italian football and any success you may have in the next few years will largely come down t his brilliance.
Dont slag a nation off when u would do anythin t b half as successful.
Italy played poor and were not helped by a daft decision, the linesman didnt get his guidelines out and spend 10 mins interpreting the rules, he made a split second cock up and Holland would admit that.
Well done holland 4 a decent display and let's jus hope Italy can dig themselves out.
Complain about this comment
Ok, maybe by the strict rules of the game it was a goal. However making use of that increasingly rare thing these days, common sense it's offside.
Complain about this comment
Keith Hackett should resign or be kicked out for his absurd justification of the bad decision by the ref. As a man who was responsible for sending Graham Poll to the World Cup, remember those terrible errors which favoured South Korea. Poll also achieved fame by dishing out 3 yellows to one player in one game. Hackett and Poll are the Bonnie and Clyde of Football.
Complain about this comment
By the way, this story is also another argument against the whole "not interfering with play" rule, if a forward not "interfering with play" (I still fail to see how a forward roaming close to the goal is not interfering with the job of defenders and goalkeepers..) is not ruled offside why should a full-back not interfering with play still be counted when assessing a forward's position?
The rule is biased, favours attack over defense and is essentially a creation of the same bureaucrats I was referring too, who probably never played football and are trying to make the game more american sport like.
Complain about this comment
I think it was a great decision.
He was deffiently onside and it was a good spot by the linesman to see Christian Panucci clearly playing van Nistelrooy's onside and I don't see what's to debate.
Complain about this comment
I think the goal should be allowed, mainly because the defender and goalkeeper collided into each other and so it was not one of the Holland players that knocked him out of the pitch.
Complain about this comment
....I can't resist anylonger and hear that Rudd's goal was offiside....i got a question for all of you saying so...WHAT IF THE ITALIAN PLAYER HAD SUDDENDLY COME BACK FROM OFF THE PITCH AND HAD DEFENDED THE GOAL? It seems giving the Italians two chances....either off side or the player to come on the pitch...well if such a case, there aint any rule. Let you see it from the Dutch players? The ball is coming inward...whom should Rudd look for? Which Italian player?....should he look the ones at his side or consider the player off the pitch to pitch come on?
Complain about this comment
whoneedsronaldo wrote:
the offside rule is now a joke.
Pannuci did not leave the pitch to gain an unfair advantage or to put van nistelroy offside, he left the pitch because he was on the ground in pain.
The interpretation (and it is an INTERPRETATION) of the law conveniently used by UEFA to cover themselves (because UEFA will never admit a mistake) was made to avoid last defenders leaving the pitch BY CHOICE to put the receiving forward offside.
UEFA has long ago lost any credibility when it comes to respecting the spirit of the game. 22 professional footballers including the Dutch and millions of spectators immediately ruled the goal offside. Why would some bureaucrat in an office in Nyon know better?
There is no way the linesman , in the heat of the moment, would have had the time to make the assumption UEFA is referring too. This is just a cover up.
_________________________________
You seem completely incapable of reading a rule that has existed since before the tournament began.
Panucci was active. He had no permission to leave the field. He is only booked if he did it on purpose.
People not knowing the rules is not a reason not to apply them.
If we were to follow your advice even if Panucci hadn't left the field of play van Nistelrooy would have been offside.
Complain about this comment
I know that rule and I've never seen an interpretation of it like this - I'd understand if Panucci had seen Sneijder shaping up to cross the ball and had run off the pitch in an attempt to play van Nistelrooy offside, but because he was injured and on the ground I can't see how he was still active in the game?
Looking at the video, Panucci goes straight down and I can't see him even look up at the match action, let alone roll about or do anything, he's got his hands over his eyes. I wonder if the point is that he collided with his own keeper:
"Panucci went off through contact with his own goalkeeper Buffon and so he is still considered part of the game."
If, say, an unfortunate and non-bookable collision with a Holland player had rendered Panucci off the pitch and also unconscious, would he still be active? Sorry, but surely not!
The point isn't that he clearly could get up and go to argue with the ref (and therefore isn't really injured?) but I think that the referees etc. are making up for the linesman's error by applying an ill-fitting law after the event. I don't think the linesman saw van Nistelrooy's touch.
Having said that, in my opinion referees' judgements are part of the match, and Italy just have to man up (as they appear to have done) and deal with what I (and so it seems many others) consider an incorrect decision.
Complain about this comment
can people stop using "by the way holland played better" or "this would have not changed the outcome of the game" or "the italians are cheats" as arguments? This is simply not the point, we're talking about a technical point, that's all. Holland was fabulous yesterday but this is not a reason not to be objective about the offside.
Complain about this comment
Daniel Craig David James wrote:
...
If, say, an unfortunate and non-bookable collision with a Holland player had rendered Panucci off the pitch and also unconscious, would he still be active? Sorry, but surely not!
...
________________________________
Why Panucci left the field is completely irrelevant.
As I said to whoneedsronaldo if he hadn't left the field van Nistelrooy would have been onside whether Panucci was diving or dead. The rules are simple and clear, Panucci was active.
Complain about this comment
The rule is in place to prevent players stepping off the pitch or feigning injury (like a lot of the big jessies do) and making someone offside. You are an active member of the team until the ref decides otherwise.
There was no foul on Panucci by the Dutch and let's just say an Italian player faking an injury is not that rare so the ref was in his right to play on. Panucci was active - full stop. Lying on the floor pretending they have been machine gunned down is an integral part of some teams games, so when someone is actually down for a reason they can get ignored but then only have themselves to blame.
All that rolling around deserves a few more conceded goals. And all that crying wolf means when someone is properly injured it takes ages for the ref to blow for the medics. So on top of being jessies they are endangering the health of their fellow "properly" injured colleagues.
Complain about this comment
Even if Panucci was 'active' he still wasn't between Van Nistleroy and the goal so it should still be an offside call ... surely?
Complain about this comment
Yeah actually on second and further reading I now see it was a fair decision - my post 408 was what I and I suspect a number of others thought having looked at it. Post 262 cleared it up for me.
Complain about this comment
I think it is a strange rule but a rule never the less so the goal should have stood.
It's unfortunate that this is overshadowing such a good game of football.
One thing i did enjoy about the game was how fair it was, each team was tackling hard but every hard tackle ended in a handshake.
Complain about this comment
Ok, maybe by the strict rules of the game it was a goal. However making use of that increasingly rare thing these days, common sense it's offside.
___________
Ah, yes. Ditch the rule book, and let officials make it up as they go along. That will make football an afwul lot fairer, and a hell of a lot easier to understand.
Complain about this comment
To go back to the early comment over ice hockey not having an offside rule, there is one that states that a player on the attacking team can not enter the opposing team's defensive zone before the puck, if the puck enters after them, then there is a break in play and a face off.
As for the offside, until the referee called a break for play to deal with the injury, Panucci is still considered an active player. I don't think that it was altogether fair, he was not in any condition to to influence play and the rule on the attacking side is that a player is not offside if he is not interfering with play, but for defenders, it doesn't matter if they're nowhere near the ball, the offside line is level with them. I guess to the letter of the law, Van Nistleroy was onside, it may seem wrong but that is the law that the referee has to work with, imagine what the uproar would have been if the ref hadn't given it and someone pointed out that Panucci was still, according to the rules, an active part of the game.
At the end of the day I don't think Italy would have turned down the goal if the situation were reversed, decisions go for and against you, sometimes for the wrong reasons, but over time they balance out.
Complain about this comment
zaphodeist wrote:
Even if Panucci was 'active' he still wasn't between Van Nistleroy and the goal so it should still be an offside call ... surely?
_________________________________
he is considered active from the point he left the field, in this case the end line.
Complain about this comment
The goal is 100% ok.
1) even off the pitch you are still in play, how else you wanna take a corner or throw in the ball?
2) Before Panucci fell over the line RVN was on-side, you cannot disadvatage RVN to become off-side because Panucci fell over the line.
3) If this rule would not exsist, it is very easy for the goalkeeper to stand 1 inch behind his goal-line in such an occasion.
Now the big discussion is, did Panucci go over the line on purpose. The answer is NO, but since it was forced by an own team member, see point 2
Complain about this comment
Fair enough, I now understand why the goal stood but doesn't it emphasize the need for UEFA, FIFA the FA to clarify rules for situations like this so we're not all stood around scratching our heads as to why what appears to be an illegitimate goal has been allowed?
Complain about this comment
Excellent decision by the officials. Rules are rules and should only be debated when raised originally. Once passed they are part of the great game so tough luck on the Italians.
Complain about this comment
The rule is a good one, for all the reasons that have been mentioned. There are, already, too many deceitful (tactical ?!) actions by players, so it is right to prevent more ! Well played the Netherlands. What a pity France or Romania didn't get a real result.....
Complain about this comment
Doug n' Freddy's Roed to Nowhere (NUFC 48) wrote:
Fair enough, I now understand why the goal stood but doesn't it emphasize the need for UEFA, FIFA the FA to clarify rules for situations like this so we're not all stood around scratching our heads as to why what appears to be an illegitimate goal has been allowed?
_____________________________-
The problem is that they did clear it up and provided the correct answer. People think that they made up the answer and are just covering themselves when it is completely obvious that they got the decision completely correct.
The situation isn't helped by people like Lee Dixon essentially calling UEFA cheats or liars live on the BBC.
Complain about this comment
I cannot believe all the debate about this. I can remember this type of scenario as a question in a Roy of the Rovers Annual in 1958 and the rule is quite clear. A player may not leave the field without the permission of the referee.
Just think of the shenannigans if it were any different.
This is masking a great display by Holland which should be applauded - as should the officials on the day for being right.
As an aside it seems a pity that we shall soon be watching football on a channel that does not know the basic rules of the game.
Complain about this comment
As far as I'm aware, nobody has commented on the Machiavellian Dutch players, who shamelessly played on and scored with one of the opposition defenders lying injured 2 yards off the pitch thus playing their entire team onside.
Complain about this comment
The rule makes perfect sense, and was enforced correctly under very difficult circumstances.
Imagine if a player automatically became inactive after leaving the field. Any time a side won a corner, all 11 defenders could stand behind the goal line, and whichever attacker touched the ball first would be automatically offside.
Of course, there's no doubt that Panucci did not intend to leave the field. However, if you were, for instance, to amend the rule to give the referee discretion as to whether or not the player is capable of affecting play, you'd simply get defenders diving across the line and feigning injury in order to play an attacker offside.
The referee had no alternative but to see Panucci as active, and thus playing van Nistelrooy onside. He was very unlucky, certainly, to have landed where he did; but luck is part of the game, whether we like it or not.
(By the way, more than an hour later, after endless replays, Graham Poll came on BBC Radio and accused the linesman of 'murdering' the referee's career, and 'committing suicide' in his own, because of how wrong the decision was. I'll leave you to your own opinions about Mr Poll.)
Complain about this comment
I suppose that if Panucci had got up and stepped onto the pitch his coach would have roasted him alive for playing Nistelrooy onside. He might have been injured but if not there was no way he was going to get to his feet surely.
Explained as Hackett did earlier there is logic to the Swedish officials' decision. After all the action was continuous from the free kick, through Buffon and Palucci colliding to Sneiders shot and Nistelrooy's deflection. If Palucci had been on his bum in the goal area the goal would have stood no argument.
Complain about this comment
This comes down to two seperate points;
1 - The law is unclear in terms of a player ending up off the pitch due to the 'playing of the game' or one who steps off the pitch to try and gain an advantage. Last night was a situation where the Italy player was not seeking an advantage and the goal possibly should have been ruled out. But in fairness the written rules leave a lot of room for ambiguity.
2. In terms of did the officials get it right? I sincerely doubt that they had a sudden moment of genius or inspiration to draw upon the obsurity of that rule and immediately decide it was on-side and a goal. The reality I suspect is that the linesman just got it plain wrong - which happens quite often.
Just in case anyone thinks I use rose tinted specs, I was watching the game wearing my replica 1974 Johan Cruyff No14 shirt !!!
Complain about this comment
The rule is totally consistent and fair. If a player was injured in the field of play and played the opposition onside the goal would have stood and noone would have complained. If we did not have this rule then the player could simply roll over the line (if he was close to it) or step off the pitch if not on the ground to play a man offside. It would make a match really difficult to officiate and make cheating more widespread.
As for defenders not interfering with play. What a total nonsense. That would make a complicated law even more complicated. Do we really want that?
Great piece of refereeing. Just because it doesn't make immediate sense to laypeople like us doesn't mean it is not right. That is when we rely on the professionals to get it right and in this case they did. And at least it allows us to see commentators eat a bit of humble pie for once.
Complain about this comment
This reminds me of a similar situation at home last weekend. On Sunday morning I had a hangover and was laid up on the couch; my wife wanted me to take the rubbish out, but I claimed that I was out of action. She said that even though I was lying down I was still involved in the housework, so I had to accept her ruling and take out the rubbish.
And they say women don't understand the offside rule!
Complain about this comment
At 5:00 pm on 10 Jun 2008, Revdutchie wrote:
...
"Before Panucci fell over the line RVN was on-side, you cannot disadvatage RVN to become off-side because Panucci fell over the line."
---------------------------
Absolutely right. Best explanation I've heard all day.
Complain about this comment
424: "Machiavellina Dutch players" - what all in that small space of time they on purpose played on knowing that there was a player injured? lol. The goalkeeper took him out, the ball went quickly to a dutch player, he shot and Van Nis put it in. There's nothing Machiavellian about that, it was just done so quickly and they might well not have noticed. For all they knew he'd just got tangled up and was about to run back on again.
I actually watched this just now and didn't notice the player off the pitch. I had to watch it again to see him. However, rules are rules and him being there meant Van Nis was onside, whether he was injured or not.
Complain about this comment
Haha sonofthedesert classic. He probably would have given the linesman three yellow cards.
Complain about this comment
Great non-call by the ref and his assistant. I have seen other situations where an injured defender has kept an attacker onside. This isn't THAT unusual, except that it's an International.
Complain about this comment
Daniel Craig David James - posts 408 and 413 - This is exactly what these posting discussions are about (in my opinion).
You posted your opinion based on what you considered to be the offside law; you then checked the other posts, saw the FIFA clarification and, having learned something of which you were previously unaware, revised your opinion.
Fantastic. It's a shame that some of the other posters just want to shout and are not genuinely interested in the actual law as it stands.
I'm still amazed by posters who cannot believe that officials who are good enough to be appointed to Euro 2008 actually know these laws inside out, complete with all the little nuances. No doubt if a heart surgeon saved their lives, he would have been 'lucky' to have patched up the correct artery!!
Complain about this comment
At 5:16 pm on 10 Jun 2008, Fiorentina_Viola wrote:
This comes down to two seperate points;
1 - The law is unclear in terms of a player ending up off the pitch due to the 'playing of the game' or one who steps off the pitch to try and gain an advantage. Last night was a situation where the Italy player was not seeking an advantage and the goal possibly should have been ruled out. But in fairness the written rules leave a lot of room for ambiguity.
2. In terms of did the officials get it right? I sincerely doubt that they had a sudden moment of genius or inspiration to draw upon the obsurity of that rule and immediately decide it was on-side and a goal. The reality I suspect is that the linesman just got it plain wrong - which happens quite often.
---------------------------------------------
1. No, the law is perfectly clear. The only reason a defender can be considered inactive due to being off the pitch is if the referee tells him to leave the pitch. If a player accidentally leaves the pitch, he is considered to still be in play for all intents and purposes.
2. Any referee or linesman at a major championships will have a lot of experience behind them, and will be quite aware of what the laws of the game are - particularly in a case which, rather than being 'obscure', is actually a very straightforward and clear part of the rulebook: if a player accidentally leaves the pitch, he is still active.
Complain about this comment
Douggielee (post 429) - I've just spat coffee over my keyboard. Thanks, Mate ;0) - best comment I've seen all day.
Complain about this comment
I have long thought that most of what comes out of Keith Hackett's mouth is offside.
If this is the rule it is crazy. By the same reasoning the players that have left the field of play due to substitutions are playing any attacker onside when they are sat on the bench.
How can a player off the pitch be active?
Complain about this comment
Cmon people it was a daft decision and I have never seen that interpretation of the offside rule b4.
It doesn't matter who was playing, just that the decision was completely and utterly inconsistent with previous similar situations.
Any team would have been unfortunate getting a decision like that and any team would have accepted their goal being disallowed jus as holland would have.
This level of in inconstancy is evident throughout the sport. Its like the government putting a 30 and a 40 mile an hour speed restriction sign on the same road. People will interpret it differently and there will b no solid way of enforcing things.
This is the kind of thing that happens all the time in law, some1 commits an offence and then 2 partys debate the meaning of the law itself.
If the goal had been disallowed and the Dutch had complained Uefa would have pulled an entirely different meaning from the same text.
Complain about this comment
The decision was correct. This is due to a number of reasons.
1. You are in an offside position if you are nearer to the opponents goal line than the second last defender.
2. In the FAQ section of the LOAF, it asks the relevant question.
Q. A defending player moves beyond his own goal line in order to place an opponent in an offside position. What action does the referee take?
A. The referee allows play to continue and cautions the defender for deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee's permission, when the ball is next out of play.
3. In this case the 'second last defender' is the goal keeper as the player who was off the FOP was the first and therefore the offside line is through the keeper.
4. It was the Italian keeper who collided with his own player thus making it the Italian's mistake that that player wasn't on the FOP to make Van Nistelrooy in an offside position.
There are, therefore, numerous reasons why the decision to allow the goal to stand was correct.
Complain about this comment
In the FIFA Laws of the Game, in the section "additional instructions and guidelines for referees"
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/laws_of_the_game_0708_10565.pdf
says that :
if a defending player steps behind his goal line to place the opponent in an offside position, the referee shall allow play to continue and caution the defender for deliberately leaving the field of play without's the