Football --- Euro '08, Transfers, etc.

Originally Posted by rdawson808

Click to expand...

Wait a minute. Are you saying that the rule states that if your own player forces you over the end line then your opponent should be penalized (i.e. called off-sides)? That makes no sense to me. I'll take your word for it, because I'm no rules expert, but it simply makes no sense.

This interpretation/exact reading (whichever it is) would allow for purposefully pushing your own teammate out in order to get an opponent offsides.

b
He was not forced off intentionally or went off himself intentionally to put an opposing player offsides, but had a collision with Buffon. By allowing the goal the referee, de facto, thinks it was intentional so he would have to give Panucci a yellow card, something that did not happen.

Originally Posted by manicturncoat

Click to expand...

He was not forced off intentionally or went off himself intentionally to put an opposing player offsides, but had a collision with Buffon. By allowing the goal the referee, de facto, thinks it was intentional so he would have to give Panucci a yellow card, something that did not happen.

BASEL, June 10 (Reuters) - Netherlands' controversial first goal in Monday's 3-0 Group C victory over world champions Italy at Euro 2008 was correctly awarded despite many observers believing it was offside, organisers UEFA said on Tuesday.

UEFA general secretary David Taylor told a news conference the officials correctly interpreted Law 11 which relates to offside when Ruud van Nistelrooy scored after 26 minutes.

He stated that Christian Panucci played him onside although the Italian defender was off the pitch at the time.

'The goal was correctly awarded. Not many people, even in the game, and I include the players, know this interpretation (of Law 11),' Taylor said.

He conceded, however: 'The Law itself does not deal with this situation directly at all,' but said that referees universally interpreted it in the way that the officials did on Monday night.

He said he had every sympathy with the wider footballing public for believing the officials called it wrong but said that Swedish referee Peter Frojdfeldt and his assistant Stefan Wittberg were absolutely correct in their interpretation.

Taylor told reporters: 'Even though the Italian defender (Christian Panucci) was off the field because of his momentum, he is still deemed to be part of the game and is therefore taken into considersation as one of the last two defending players.

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

'This is a widely known interpretation of the offside law among referees but is not generally known by the wider footballing public and indeed many people in football,' he said.

'That is understandable because incidents like this are very unusual.

'However, there was a similar incident in a Swiss League match about a month ago between Sion and FC Basel and after a TV commentator initially suggested the referee had made a mistake, he later apologised publicly and congratulations to him.'

The goal caused confusion among both the Italian and Dutch players too, a number of whom looked astonished when the goal was awarded.

It also provoked some angry reaction among the Italian fans when it was replayed on the giant screens inside the Stade de Suisse stadium and led to Luca Toni being booked for dissent for protesting.

Taylor said his yellow card would stand and that goals would still be replayed on the screens throughout the tournament.

The International Football Association Board, the guardian of the game's laws, had the prerogative to examine the law if they thought the wording needed to be clarified or a loophole existed, Taylor said.

BBC Sport (U1816352) 09 June 2008

But what looked a desperately poor decision was, in fact, a brilliant piece of officiating, according to the chairman of Austria's refereeing commission Gerhard Kapl.

Kapl said Van Nistelrooy was played onside by Italy's Christian Panucci, who had been injured seconds earlier and was lying behind the goal when the Dutch striker scored.

He said the goal was "100% correct, without any doubt", quoting article 11.4.1. of the refereeing code that states "an opposing player cannot be offside when one of the last two defenders has left the field of play" - as in the case of Panucci.

Originally Posted by manicturncoat

Click to expand...

He was not forced off intentionally or went off himself intentionally to put an opposing player offsides, but had a collision with Buffon. By allowing the goal the referee, de facto, thinks it was intentional so he would have to give Panucci a yellow card, something that did not happen.

I know he wasn't. I'm just saying that reading hte rule as you do creats that incentive.

How can you punish RvN for what was the mistake of the opposing team (Buffon forcing his teammate off)?

b

Originally Posted by rdawson808

Click to expand...

I know he wasn't. I'm just saying that reading hte rule as you do creats that incentive.

How can you punish RvN for what was the mistake of the opposing team (Buffon forcing his teammate off)?

b

Exactly. In my 14 years of high level play I never encountered this rule. The player was on the pitch while play was live. I was befuddled when the commentators were interpreting it as offsides.

Originally Posted by cpmac7

Click to expand...

wow, no one saw that coming. italy looked bad

I actually picked the Oranjemen to win...

then again, I'm just a RvN fanboy...

Originally Posted by rdawson808

Click to expand...

I know he wasn't. I'm just saying that reading hte rule as you do creats that incentive.

How can you punish RvN for what was the mistake of the opposing team (Buffon forcing his teammate off)?

b
It is the same logic of the handball where the referee must judge intent before awarding a penalty.

Originally Posted by manicturncoat

Click to expand...

It is the same logic of the handball where the referee must judge intent before awarding a penalty.

Okay, so in this instance, Buffon did not mean to make RvN offsides (by knocking his teammate over the end line), so therefore RvN is not offsides. Right?


What if Panucci (?) had just tripped on his own and fallen over the end line?


b

Originally Posted by rdawson808

Click to expand...

Okay, so in this instance, Buffon did not mean to make RvN offsides (by knocking his teammate over the end line), so therefore RvN is not offsides. Right?


What if Panucci (?) had just tripped on his own and fallen over the end line?


b

I'd have to see the replay to be sure, but the bear in mind that the goal was scored several seconds after Panucci was felled. The question is where was RvN positioned when Panucci went flying? Did this result in him now beingput in an 'offside' position, or did he move forward and become so in the intervening second(s)?

The rule is that an attacker is not offside if one of the two defenders leaves the pitch by his own momentum. Likewise, the defending team would be 'penalized' (i.e. the attacking player is judged to be onside) if the they are seeking the advantage (trying to pull a fast one), as in your 'incentive scenarios. If CP tripped and fell he would have been judged to have gone out by his own momentum, and RVN would not be penalized.....

What's up with ESPN2's werewoman talking about how good looking players are before and after every single game?

Switzerland is out of the tournament.

Switzerland v Turkey,best game so far by a mile!!

Originally Posted by benecios

Click to expand...

Switzerland v Turkey,best game so far by a mile!!
We'll see if this Croatia vs. Germany game surpasses that. I'm rooting for Croatia to win, and then upset the whole tournament to take 1st place.

Not a very good match and Germany lies behind 0:1. If the Germans loose today, there'll be the smell of Cordoba in the air.

Originally Posted by fritzl

Click to expand...

Not a very good match and Germany lies behind 0:1. If the Germans loose today, there'll be the smell of Cordoba in the air.

it's now 0:2.