posted Jun 15, 2008

are you agreeing or disagreeing then? I always thought the white line indicated what is the pitch and which isnt. Might as well do away with it then!

Still boiling!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 15, 2008

The rule is intended to stop defenders stepping off the pitch to put an attacker offside, which makes it a good rule IMO. It should, though, apply the same active/passive distinction to the defender as for attackers, and as far as I know, it doesn't do that.

So if you're lying on the ground injured, you should be considered not interfering with play, whether you're an attacker or a defender behind the line.
If a defender steps out of play on purpose, it should be interference, just like an attacker who distracts the defence before a different onside player scores.

Of course the clarification would come too late to help Italy, but it needs to be written into the rulebook asap.

And if we're going to have such complex rules, we also need video aids to the 4th official to make them work.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 16, 2008

On this occasion maybe the player was injured and not interfering with play.

However, if the rule is clarified to say that if a player is laying off the field he can not be deemed to be interfering with play it is obvious that players will take advantage of it in order to get the opposition ruled offside.

Lets face it they already fall flat on their faces at the merest touch to try and get a free kick.

So the next stage would be to tell players that if they attempt a tackle in their own penalty area and find themselves behind the line but the ball is still in play they should lie flat on the floor pretending to be injured.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 16, 2008

Way too many people are basing their arguments on the fact that he was actually injured. That's not relevent at all, the ref can't wait to see if he's injured or not, and hence deny Holland a goalscoring attack, and the whole thing took around 2-4 seconds anyway.

The russian example is just nonsense, because we all know the rukles about interfering with play (even if we think they are rubbish), he wasn't interfering by current rules so wasn't offside. It is actually (unfortunately) an example of how the "interfering with play) rule can work as by the letter of the old offside laws, he became offside after paaing back to an onside player, who scored the goal. I could be wrong there but under the OOLD rules would that goal have been dissalowed?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 16, 2008

Was it offside yes or no?
The player was knocked of the field this is true. Was he injured no. He stayed there in the hope the ref would stop the play. When we look back we see the player looking how Van Nistelrooij scores. When italy had to kick off he was on the pitch and didnt need medical attention. So no he was not injured. So when you look at the facts. The ref had made the right decision. Beside that all how often does a player who got hit Really was injured??

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 16, 2008

Panucci actually got medical attention while the Dutch were celebrating their goal.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 16, 2008

He played RVN onside - that is all there is to it.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 16, 2008

Panucci was playing Van Nistelrooy onside. The referee did no allow Panucci to leave the field of play (injured or not). So technically Panucci was still in play, and therefore keeping Van Nistelrooy onside.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 17, 2008

Wasn't this ages ago??

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 17, 2008

Yes shabba and I'm not shoure what is the topic any more. The fabules V.N fantastic goal ore Sneider's fantastic reaktion when givent the slitest chan's ?????
I mean that V.N is onside was 100% clear.

add comment | complain about this comment