[haggler]

Page last updated at 22:39 GMT, Monday, 9 June 2008 23:39 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Netherlands 3-0 ItalyBerne, 9 June 2008

Euro 2008 day three as it happened
606 debate | Blog


Report Dutch view Italy viewPlayer Rater Photos Match stats


Donadoni knows his side have to improve
Italy boss Roberto Donadoni refused to get drawn into a row about Ruud van Nistelrooy's opener in his side's 3-0 defeat by Netherlands at Euro 2008.

Van Nistelrooy appeared to be clearly offside as he diverted Wesley Sneider's long range shot in from six yards.

"I accept it," said Donadoni. "The referee made a mistake. He's human."

But, as Italy's Christian Panucci had been injured moments earlier and was off the pitch, an Austrian referee official insisted the goal was legal.

Chairman of Austria's refereeing commission Gerhard Kapl backed the decision by Swedish referee Peter Frojdfeldt and said it was "100% correct, without any doubt".

Kapl pointed out that article 11.4.1. of the refereeing code stipulated that "an opposing player cannot be offside when one of the last two defenders has left the field of play".

606: DEBATE
Was Van Nistelrooy offside?

He explained the rule was brought in to stop players deliberately stepping off the field of play to make an opponent offside.

But the Azzurri would argue that Panucci was off the field because he had been caught by keeper Gianluigi Buffon as he tried to meet a cross just before the goal.


just thought i would clear it up copied from bbc website

 

[Guest]

"an opposing player cannot be offside when one of
the last two defenders has left the field of play"

He explained the rule was brought in to stop players
deliberately stepping off the field of play to make an opponent offside.

But the Azzurri would argue that Panucci was off the field because
he had been caught by keeper Gianluigi Buffon as he tried to meet
a cross just before the goal.

Still kind of ambiguous that Haggs. This is a response i got from
a referee's forum.

Dear zuco, thank you for your question.

If we allowed defending players to step over the goal line in an
attempt to make an attacking player offside, the game would become
a farce in no time, as they would all be doing it, including the goalkeepers.

The Assistant Referee (and the Referee) in tonight's game made an
excellent decision to allow the goal, under huge pressure during a
very difficult moment.

When deciding offside, a defender, who is over the goal line, is deemed
to be on the goal line, at the nearest point.

If the match Television commentators, mangers and players etc. spent
a little time actually studying the Laws, it would prevent them making
great fools of themselves by making emotional statements that have
no bearing on the actual Laws themselves.

As much as I hate to say it (being of pure Italian stock myself!)
Van Nistelrooy was not in an offside position, and the goal was legal.

So it would appear that I was wrong

Apologies to Mr. Cappy as he defended his point to the death even
when four of five members were going at him.

Edit: The above reply was from Julian Carosi who is a legendary figure among English
Instructors with years of experience of Law interpretation. I think we can
safely say his answer is correct

 

[haggler]

i only posted that to muddy the water even more

i still say hes wrong ha ha !

 

[versa]

Apologies to Mr. Cappy as he defended his point to the death even when four of five members were going at him.

Surrounding and confronting the referee is so Chelski and a yellow-card offence.

So who was 'John Terry' leading the charge? Zuco?

But seriously, Cappy, time to make your move on the referee thread.

 

[Cappy]

No apologies needed Zuco, more impressed than anything that you posted what you found out. It did get heated, but thats what makes this game so great is the passion involved. I think the biggest thing to realize is that referees aren't always there to determine if injustice has occurred. It was an unfortunate way to give up a goal (but one should be arguing why Buffon even punched the ball back into play that would have gone out for a goal kick). However, the referees are there to enforce the rules as they are written, which sometimes do look flawed and unfair.

Also, a special thanks to mister Haggler for stirring up the pot so well.

 

[CROoney]

i would still like if someone would explain me how the goal was legal - first of all - defender did not leave the pitch on his own will - he was pushed away by his own goalkeeper. second of all - he left lying injured on the floor thus being unable to get back into play -
the ref had 2 options -
1. disallowing a goal for an offside because of the previosly stated
2. let the goal stand and awarding the italian player a yellow card because by letting the goal stand he sent us a mesaage that the player was faking injury in order to fool the ref to stop the play and it is dubbed as an unsport behaviour
he did something in the middle - he let the goal stand but he failed to explain why - yellow card would have been an explanation -
to all of you who will try to say - the goal was enough punishment for the italian player is the same like saying - "kusczazck shouldn't have gotten red because the penalty was enough punishment" for that particular inncident( pompey match ).
football rules should be exact and the ref made a mistake by leaving a room for discussions. one action leads to another - allowed goal ? why ? because player was faking ?IF HE WAS FAKING WHY DIDN'T HE GIVE HIM THE YELLOW CARD ? if not - then it means he was actually punched away from the play - if that's the case - then why allowed goal ?
anyways - there are many unanswerd questions and untill i get answered on every one of it that good to leave me without any questions more i will consider it as an offside

 

[Guest]

Why punish the Italian player? He did nothing wrong.

The article Haggler posted clearly states,

article 11.4.1. of the refereeing code stipulated that
"an opposing player cannot be offside when one of the last two
defenders has left the field of play".

Now let's say the defender who was knocked off the
pitch landed two yards the opposite direction, just on
the pitch. Van Nistelrooy would have been onside.
Considering the defender was knocked off the pitch
by his own goalkeeper, why should Van Nistelrooy be
punished for it? That's basically the point of view that
the rules take.

I also gave you quite a comprehensive answer from one
of the most knowledgeable and respected men in the
refereeing community. I don't know which part you dont get

 

[CROoney]

article 11.4.1. of the refereeing code stipulated that
"an opposing player cannot be offside when one of the last two
defenders has left the field of play".
you missed a little part there - "left the field of play intentionally by his own will "

 

[Guest]

Wow, you totally bypassed my whole post
and picked out one line, nice work mate

 

[CROoney]

Why punish the Italian player? He did nothing wrong.

The article Haggler posted clearly states,



Now let's say the defender who was knocked off the
pitch landed two yards the opposite direction, just on
the pitch. Van Nistelrooy would have been onside.
Considering the defender was knocked off the pitch
by his own goalkeeper, why should Van Nistelrooy be
punished for it? That's basically the point of view that
the rules take.

I also gave you quite a comprehensive answer from one
of the most knowledgeable and respected men in the
refereeing community. I don't know which part you dont get

now lets suppose that ruud's ball went 4 meters to the right - would the goal count then ? no it wouldn't coz he would have missed the entire goal -
there's no " let's suppose " - what happened - happened - that's why we have got outlines....

Wow, you totally bypassed my whole post
and picked out one line, nice work mate

there - try again...
although i see what you mean i can't accept "what if " explanation - the player wasn't off the play by his own will- a fact
if the ref thought he was then why didn't he book him. i think the ref wasn't sure himslef - otherwise he would have booked him and "bacekd up" his decision

 

[Guest]

now lets suppose that ruud's ball went 4 meters to the right - would the goal count then ? no it wouldn't coz he would have missed the entire goal -
there's no " let's suppose " - what happened - happened - that's why we have got outlines....

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with that fantasy situation, but
since the referee instructor's words aren't good enough for you, have a
read of this from EUFA:

Tuesday 10 June 2008

UEFA supports Dutch goal decision

by Mark Chaplin from Basel


UEFA has emphasised that the goal scored by Netherlands striker Ruud van Nistelrooy in last night's UEFA EURO 2008™ match against Italy in Berne was valid, and that referee Peter Fröjdfeldt acted correctly in awarding the goal.

Not offside
UEFA General Secretary David Taylor was reacting to claims from some quarters that Van Nistelrooy was standing in an offside position when he scored the first of the Netherlands' goals in their 3-0 win. "I would like to take the opportunity to explain and emphasise that the goal was correctly awarded by the referee team," he said. "I think there's a lack of understanding among the general football public, and I think it's understandable because this was an unusual situation.

The player was not offside, because, in addition to the Italian goalkeeper, there was another Italian player in front of the goalscorer. Even though that other Italian player at the time had actually fallen off the pitch, his position was still relevant for the purposes of the offside law."

Still involved
The starting point, said Mr Taylor, is the Laws of the Game – Law 11 – which deals with offside, and whereby a player is in an offside position if he is nearer to his opponents' goalline than both the ball and the second last opponent. "There need to be two defenders involved," the UEFA General Secretary said. "If you think back to the situation, the first is the goalkeeper, and the second is the defender who, because of his momentum, actually had left the field of play. But this defender was still deemed to be part of the game. Therefore he is taken into consideration as one of the last two opponents.

As a result, Ruud Van Nistelrooy was not nearer to the opponents' goal than the second last defender and, therefore, could not be in an offside position.

Rare incident
"This is a widely-known interpretation of the offside law amongst referees that is not generally known by the wider football public," he continued. "Incidents like this are very unusual – although I'm informed that there was an incident like this about a month ago in a Swiss Super League match between FC Sion and FC Basel 1893. [It was] initially suggested that this [goal] was a mistake by the referee in terms of the offside law – the commentator later apologised publicly, as he didn't realise that this was the correct application of the law. "
Law applied
Mr Taylor concluded: "So let's be clear – the referees' team applied the law in the correct manner. If we did not have this interpretation of the player being off the pitch, then what could happen is that the defending team could use the tactic of stepping off the pitch deliberately to play players offside, and that clearly is unacceptable.
The most simple and practical interpretation of the law in this instance is the one that is adopted by referees throughout the world – that is that unless you have permission from the referee to be off the pitch, you are deemed to be on it and deemed to be part of the game. That is why the Italian defender, even though his momentum had taken him off the pitch, was still deemed to be part of the game, and therefore the attacking player put the ball into the net, and it was a valid goal. The law in this place was applied absolutely correctly."

Hope this clears it up for you

 

[CROoney]

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with that fantasy situation, but




the same thing you were trying to prove with your "let's suppose" statement


"But this defender was still deemed to be part of the game. Therefore he is taken into consideration as one of the last two opponents. "
lol - and how is that ? by lying down on the floor and holding his face ??? this has got to be the most ridiculous explanation ever

 

[Guest]

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with that fantasy situation, but




the same thing you were trying to prove with your "let's suppose" statement

My scenario illustrated a point. Yours asked a silly question at the end of it.

Do you now understand and accept that the goal was valid?

 

[carlyluvsunited]

The goal was good ... Rule 11.4.1

I'm extrememly impressed with the referee too ...

To make the decision he did, so quickly in such a high profile game is commendable

How often do we say that of a referee ?

 

[CROoney]

My scenario illustrated a point. Yours asked a silly question at the end of it.

Do you now understand and accept that the goal was valid?

"But this defender was still deemed to be part of the game. Therefore he is taken into consideration as one of the last two opponents. "
lol - and how is that ? by lying down on the floor and holding his face ??? this has got to be the most ridiculous explanation ever.
why didn't thhey reflect on a player who was lying down - that is my question- they just stated he was deemed to play - but they failed to explain why

The goal was good ... Rule 11.4.1

I'm extrememly impressed with the referee too ...

To make the decision he did, so quickly in such a high profile game is commendable

How often do we say that of a referee ?

carly - i just dont think the rule has been rightly interpreted - imo player was unable to continue playing.
they just had to protect the ref who made a wrong decision against the WC ( and I'm glad about it ) -but that's imo

 

[Guest]

It seems you are now quoting my words as your own

The quote button isn't that hard to use mate

Read the article in full. A rule is a rule and the decision was correct.

I've given you the correct answer from two different sources and
you still don't agree. Not much more I can say to you I think.

 

[CROoney]

It seems you are now quoting my words as your own

The quote button isn't that hard to use mate

Read the article in full. A rule is a rule and the decision was correct.

I've given you the correct answer from two different sources and
you still don't agree. Not much more I can say to you I think.

check again

and again - i saw your posts and quotes and i'm sticking to mine and my sources
i don't buy uefa's crap one bit - we all know they're not honest people
but fair enough for your work

 

[Guest]

check again

and again - i saw your posts and quotes and i'm sticking to mine and my sources
i don't buy uefa's crap one bit - we all know they're not honest people

I checked again and my words and still quoted as if typed by you

You don't buy UEFA's crap? So they quote the rules and you still
don't believe them? There's no hope for you Mr. CROoney

 

[CROoney]

I checked again and my words and still quoted as if typed by you

You don't buy UEFA's crap? So they quote the rules and you still
don't believe them? There's no hope for you Mr. CROoney

what rules ? they quoted it only partial . why didn't they (and you when you're so sure about it ) explain how did that lying italian affect the play
oh and sorry what did i quote you wrong

 

[Guest]

what rules ???? they quoted it only partial ! why didn't they (and you when you're so sure about it ) explain how did that lying italian affect the play

Read page 37 here and all will be revealed http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/Advice Final Aug2007.pdf