Manchester United Talk banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

for cappy and zuco/RVN's 'Offside' goal

2K views 53 replies 10 participants last post by  -zuco- 
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 :p
 
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 "
 
-zuco- said:
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....

-zuco- said:
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
 
-zuco- said:
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
 
-zuco- said:
CROoney said:
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

carlyluvsunited said:
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
 
-zuco- said:
It seems you are now quoting my words as your own :rolleyes:
-zuco- said:
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 :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

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
 
-zuco- said:
I checked again and my words and still quoted as if typed by you :rolleyes:

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 :p
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
 
-zuco- said:
I don't have time either ;)

Though it is fairly self explanatory.
ok but i don't understand it clearly - i see some sense in "why should an attacker be punished for the fact that defender got kicked out of play" ...but i really have to go - i will be late:(
 
ok guys after seeing the tv show in which an expert( former ref and he's involved in international referee agency under FIFA - i don't know the name ) replied to Mr.Taylor i managed to write down some of the things he said. something like this - " I'm surprised that general secretary of UEFA commented the rule number 11. UEFA didn't write the rules - especially not general secretary. " Then he stated the name of the FIFA branch who invented those rules and he said how there are many rules in collision with this particular one . He said even something like this : I would like to ask mr taylor what would have happened had the Dutch striker pushed( not fouled, but outmuscled ) Panucci of the line. Would then Panucci count as an active player ? It was clear that Panucci was holding his head and was unable to return thus being unactive . I would really like that you could have heard this man - he offered a completely different story.

-zuco- said:
If a player goes off the pitch with a broken leg
and the attacking team score 5 seconds later,
(same scenario as last night but more extreme)
how can the referee tell immediately whether
or not an injury is genuine? Answer: He can't.

It's as simple as that. So to rule out the situation
where defenders could feign injury they have this
rule where the defender who crosses the line is
deemed to be standing on the goal line.

I think it's a good rule too. If RVN's goal WAS given
offside (which I thought it was at first), it would
have been very harsh because it wasn't his fault
the player was off the pitch, he was knocked behind
the line by his own goalkeeper.

you speak some sense but what if he'd been knocked off the line by an attacking player ( without a foul ). Would that be taking advantage of situation... It's a very tricky situation and as i said there are a lot who disagree with it. Maybe not at this particular site - but certainly there are..
anyways - i do not want to fall into argument with you guys - i just think(based on the explanations from both sides ) if he'd given an offside no one would have disagreed with it and the decision could have been explained
 
carlyluvsunited said:
Knocked over the line by an attacking player ... but not with a foul.

OMG ... the original incident in itself is only likely to ever arise maybe
once every 3 years worldwide. Now your clutching at straws here
Mr Cro ...

The FACT is the guy was off the pitch ... thereby negating any offside
rule against RVN ... the goal stands.

Rule 11.4.1

Unless anyone can show me ... with reference ... any rule that proves
this wrong ... then what is there to be discussed ... :confused:
carly - as i said - it's not only my opinion - i don't care - i'm glad the dutch beat their arses - but i'm trying to show you guys what another expert said live on the TV - as i don't have the link or the proof he said it . I'm just trying to show you the different side of the medal and you all are trying to be sarcastic like i don't know what the hell i'm talking about. The same medal you all were spitting at when the president of uefa was suggesting some ridiculous suggestions. Plattini ? Give me a break - we all know they're not saints and that they will get behind their man ( even the FA does it when the refs make mistakes ). And yes carly - there is a way to put a player off the pitch without foulling him ( we , who actually played football know how - shoulder to shoulder and stuff ).The player was forced off the pitch and unable to continue -oh and i believe that the rule says something like this -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.
and i ask you - did he do it ?
and as i said earlier - he mentioned some rules and actually read them which are contradictory to the rule no11 in this particular case
oh and carly can you tell me the rule you've been mentioning so much - 11.4.1 - i didn't find it - i found only 11.4 that says INTERFFERING WITH AN OPPONENT and has nothing to do with this. it is more likely to be from 11.8 to 11.11.
AND BELIEVE ME I KNOW THAT THE RULE 11.11 SAYS - A DEFENDER WHO LEAVES THE FIELD DURING THE COURSE OF PLAY AND DOES NOT IMMEDIATELY RETURN MUST STILL BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMING WHERE THE SECOND TO LAST DEFENDER IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF JUDGING WHICH ATTACKERS ARE IN AN OFFSIDE POSTION. SUCH A DEFENDER IS CONSIDERED TO BE ON THE TOUCH LINE OR GOAL LINE CLOSEST TO HIS OR HER OFF FIELD POSITION. Now I know all that - but the thing is - he was thrown out of play ( doesn't matter by whom - he could have been thrown out by RVN ( we 've all seen thousands of fouls made by striker that were not given ) - would the goal be legal then ? I just think the striker gained an "unfair " advantage ( of course not but his own intention but the fact that the player was not only off the line ( that's not that relevant ) but the fact that he was lying on the floor and holding for his head made him unable to be involved in active play imo ) - that's all
 
nigelchin said:
hold on people, if he's knocked over by an attacking player without a foul, wouldnt he be in an onside position then? you cant knock him from an offside position to over the goal line right? however i imagine it, its impossible.

and since the rule supported that RVN's goal stands, it stand then. period.
:D peace people.
panucci would have been at the same spot he ended up in this situation
 
Dean555 said:
France Coach Raymond Domenech is certain to have infuriated Italian football fans once again after declaring that Ruud Van Nistelrooy's controversial ‘offside' goal against Italy on Monday was valid. The French coach also bizarrely claimed that Romania have been the most impressive team at Euro 2008 so far.

Italy were deservedly beaten 3-0 by Holland but the match was not without huge controversy. Ruud van Nistelrooy scored the Oranje's first goal from what looked like a clear offside position, however UEFA have since come out to defend the referee's decision and explain that the goal was perfectly legal.

Although van Nistelrooy appeared to be yards offside, UEFA have explained that he wasn't because Italian defender Christian Panucci, who was lying off the pitch at the time of the goal, was in fact playing him onside.

The non-refereeing football community have almost unanimously blasted the decision to allow the goal, with Luiz Felipe Scolari and Joachim Loew both coming out in support of Italy.
However French boss Domenech, who has delivered numerous outbursts against Italy in the past, has declared that the goal was perfectly valid.

"The goal of Van Nistelrooy for the Netherlands was valid,†sniped Domenech in today's press conference.

“The rule seems to have changed and now we are all pleased to know, however, the rule is clear.

“Those who say to the contrary obviously are not familiar with the rules.â€

Domenech's France laboured to a drab 0-0 draw with Romania, but the French boss has claimed that the Tricolorii are the best team he has seen so far, using a bizarre set of reasoning to explain his claim.

“The Netherlands won against Italy but the team who have impressed me so far [at the Euros] are Romania,†he stated.

“One reason for this is because they are the only team I've seen in person.

“I can not speak about the teams that we have not yet played.â€
hm - it seems i'm not the only one who thinks the goal should not have been allowed...
 
Cappy said:
First off, if you wanna agree with the new Chelsea boss, then go for it. :p

But aside from joking around, I will tell you that one of my Referee friends told me that he heard that FIFA was going to have a panel on this instance to see if they can make a fairer ruling. I think that tells you all that you need to know, in that FIFA sees that the rule was interpreted correctly, but they don't like what happened from it. Unfortunately when making laws, even in sports, we are incapable of making a perfectly fair set of laws, because there are always going to be these weird/fluke happenings that will occur during games that no one would have that might have happened.

But with the laws of the game in place, most officials have said that it was interpreted correctly, while not being the most fair way to score a goal. Isn't it interesting that it is the coaches who think that the call was wrong though? (This goes back to my argument with Zuco right after it happened, that you would be surprised how many of the coaches, officials, and talking heads do not know alot of the smaller more minute laws of the games which I won't get into here.)

Hope this helps.

Edited...and if you want to get into semantics, about who knocked the player out, then it still be the same for me as long as no foul was committed. As an official, when I first saw the goal live, I thought the goal was legit (not sure why but I did see the Italian laying on the ground.) If he had gone into the challenge with Kuyt, without Buffon throwing him down and Panucci still got hurt, as long as no infringement had occurred, I would have still ruled the same way. If the goal had not developed so quickly, and the ball had been cleared out farther downfield so that we all knew that Panucci was indeed hurt and not able to pull out with the rest of his team as an active player, then I would say Ruud was offside.
thanks for clearing a few things up. just to say a couple of words - i read that rule and it seems to me that it is not clear enough - it leaves a room for discussion. for instance - if player was incapable of returning into play how could he affect the play etc. that's why i think the ref wouldn't have made a mistake had he ruled a goal offside . i think that the ref didn't see panucci was lying on the floor. it all happened so quickly . and i wish to say that the fact that david taylor came up and said that the goal was legitimate - doesn't prove much in my eyes. uefa has publicly stated that the penalty for austria against poland was legitimate too but it has nothing to do with the penalty. it was overreacting . the guy was held - true - but not that much to throw himslef like a girl - football is a contact sport - and that contact wasn't enough for the penalty.
anyway all in all I think we've had some awfull decisions so far and to name just a few - goal for poland yesterday was 0,61 meters offside,pepe's disallowed goal for offside shouldn't have been disallowed ( 3d animation showed it ), ivansitczh should have been booked for awfull diving against poland, pogatetz should have been given the straight red for kicking olic,rvp shouldn't have been ruled offside in that italy match when he was going one on one with buffon, maybe the ruud goal as i stated could have been disallowed etc
 
Cappy said:
the ref or AR? if they AR had not seen him, he would have been offside, and I am sure that it was noted on their headsets when he was past the line...like I have previously posted, if they had called offside, I would not have had a problem with it, but I do think the rules (as they are written at the time of the match) were interpreted correctly...they could be revised and most likely will be so there will not be any doubt in the call next time, but if you read the rules as they are written, without any "what if's" (as in what if he was seriously injured, or "what if he had been thrown out by an attacker but no foul commited") then you will see that it was called correctly
oh - i wasn't thinking about that incident . i meant about the refs throughout the entire tournament
but when talking about "no if's" i must ask you this - please - bear with me ;) A DEFENDER WHO LEAVES THE FIELD DURING THE COURSE OF PLAY AND DOES NOT IMMEDIATELY RETURN MUST STILL BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMING WHERE THE SECOND TO LAST DEFENDER IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF JUDGING WHICH ATTACKERS ARE IN AN OFFSIDE POSTION. SUCH A DEFENDER IS CONSIDERED TO BE ON THE TOUCH LINE OR GOAL LINE CLOSEST TO HIS OR HER OFF FIELD POSITION.pk - i realise this -now - but did he leave it with the ref's approval?
 
Cappy said:
people leave the field all the time without the referees approval, when players run down the wing and their momentum carries themselves out? do they have to ask the referee for permission to continue their run as they come back on the field? no, of course not...he did not have the referee's approval and that is why he was/would be allowed to come back on as an active player wihtout needing the referee's approval to come back on
i know about that "down the wing stuff" - but if the player gets "injured"or on the floor after being kicked out of play - the momentum does not apply there imo
 
Cappy said:
but its the same type thing, his momentum carried him out, he was going out even without the push from buffon...which is a moot point because one of the three criterion for it to be a foul, is it has to be on an opponent (cannot foul your own team)...since there was no foul, then it happened during the run of play and he was still active
oh, i think you're wrong there...he wasn't going out even without a push from buffon- he was jumping on the line and then buffon pushed him out - but as you said - it was an "accident" that buffon pushed him out.But i think the ref also made a mistake - why ? let me explain - if he thought he was faking ( which he probably did ) he should have booked him after the goal 'd been scored. If he thought he was really injured - he shouldn't have counted him to determine the offside position. I think no one ( even you would have blamed him for that ). But ok - looking at the rules strictly - the goal was legal. i think it is a really undefined rule which has to be worked out.Especially in those circumstances when a player is unable to return.Thanks for your patience - :)
But I wanted to see your response about refs' mistakes so far. There's been plenty of them. Too much imo. Let me name the major one's again : henry's goal yesterday was from an offside position,toni's goal yesterday wasn't from an offside position( and uefa has openely defended the rulling out off the goal even though the ref apologised to Italians later on ), austria's pogatetz should have been off for kicking olic, penalty for austria shouldn't have been given, poland goal at the same match was scored from 0,61 meters in an offside position,pepe's disallowed goal for offside should have been allowed, rvp had the chance to go 1 on 1 with buffon to score the fourth when he was wrongfully ruled for offside, then last night in the czech-turkey match at the result 2-0 for the czechs,the turkish defender lifts the foot so high to kick the guy in the head with his studs - that should have been a penalty or at least an indirect free-kick if the ref thought he didn't hit him ( he obviously did because we all saw the blood on his head, ), then the penalty should have been given for spain when the swedish player jumped on the david silva's back - he knocked him off , definitely a lot of inconsistant decisions too - incionsistant criterias....
oh and - I'm really surprised how you can't see the class of Arjen Robben . At least his silky skills and movement ( what we were talking about the other day )
 
Cappy said:
I never argued that Robben wasn't a classy player, he just doesn't seem as fluid to me as the other lefties you mentioned when we talked about it. He seems herky jerky when he runs. One thing about Robben, is he is alot like Rooney, and so amazingly effective coming on as a substitute although neither would be happy in that role (nor do I think you should play them as one.)

As far as the decisions go, I have not seen them all, and will watch most of them soon. I have all the games recorded that I missed, so I will be able to discuss before to long about them. But you are right, the referees have been inconsistent, which looks worse than just being bad. When you are blowing up a game as a referee, there is still a chance the players can adapt to the way you are calling it. But if you are inconsistent, then there is no chance and just looks awful.
yeah - and also i don't blame them for that "pepe disallowed goal" type a mistakes - it took us 3D animation to determine that in a split second he wasn't offside , but toni offside, red cards i mentioned and henry offside should have been given
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top