Holland v Italy

[Arch]

Not if he's been carted off for treatment or told to leave the field by the ref.

But no player is then, which is why I, sensibly, didn't include those two options in my post.

It must have been the 'always' part that misled me. I see now that what you meant was an active defender is always active, and there I'd have to agree with you.

[papereyes]

Not if he's been carted off for treatment or told to leave the field by the ref.

But no player is then, which is why I, sensibly, didn't include those two options in my post.

It must have been the 'always' part that misled me. I see now that what you meant was an active defender is always active, and there I'd have to agree with you.

Now you're just being a oxf*rd.

[Kitsondinho]

Changes the roles....Van Nistlehorse is in an onside position...there is a Dutch attacker where Pannuci was.....Nistlehorse scores.....but he is offside because of the 'active' Dutch player. The law is utter nonesense in both cases and the 'new improved offside rules' (tm FIFA) just make it worse....its like one of those stupid plot twists in cr*p films that make you go

[papereyes]

Changes the roles....Van Nistlehorse is in an onside position...there is a Dutch attacker where Pannuci was.....Nistlehorse scores.....but he is offside because of the 'active' Dutch player. The law is utter nonesense in both cases and the 'new improved offside rules' (tm FIFA) just make it worse....its like one of those stupid plot twists in cr*p films that make you go

Depends on whether the player in Pannuci's position is playing the ball (he's not), interfering with play (he's not) or gaining an advantage (he's not). If I've got that wrong, tell me.

Consider another scenario.

Defender is by the corner flag, screws up his clearance and two strikers go through the middle, one-two it round the keeper with a forward pass to a player ahead and score. Played onside by lazy-arse down by the corner flag. GOAL.

Swap it round (a bit)

Attacker is by the corner flag, having chased down a long ball. Ball goes central quickly and a goal is scored with the attacker in an offside position but miles wide of goal. Attacker is in an offside position but not playing the ball, interfering or anything. GOAL.

If I've got that wrong, tell me.

[Kitsondinho]

Changes the roles....Van Nistlehorse is in an onside position...there is a Dutch attacker where Pannuci was.....Nistlehorse scores.....but he is offside because of the 'active' Dutch player. The law is utter nonesense in both cases and the 'new improved offside rules' (tm FIFA) just make it worse....its like one of those stupid plot twists in cr*p films that make you go

Depends on whether the player in Pannuci's position is playing the ball (he's not), interfering with play (he's not) or gaining an advantage (he's not). If I've got that wrong, tell me.

Consider another scenario.

Defender is by the corner flag, screws up his clearance and two strikers go through the middle, one-two it round the keeper with a forward pass to a player ahead and score. Played onside by lazy-arse down by the corner flag. GOAL.

Swap it round (a bit)

Attacker is by the corner flag, having chased down a long ball. Ball goes central quickly and a goal is scored with the attacker in an offside position but miles wide of goal. Attacker is in an offside position but not playing the ball, interfering or anything. GOAL.

If I've got that wrong, tell me.

You are indeed right..as you are about the 1st Dutch goal...I'm well aware of that..I just think its really poor interpretation of the law...even the Dutch players expected it to be given offside. Its a really stupid way to justify the goal....I doubt the Dutch would have complained that much if it hadn't been given.

[rabidbee]

Yes, but ignorance is no defence.

[soggy biscuit]

Yes, but ignorance is no defence.

What about Oswaldo Ignorance who plays in defence for Sarmiento in the Argentinian Primera B?

[papereyes]

Yes, but ignorance is no defence.

What about Oswaldo Ignorance who plays in defence for Sarmiento in the Argentinian Primera B?

Primera B



Not good enough, mate. Not good enough

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Changes the roles....Van Nistlehorse is in an onside position...there is a Dutch attacker where Pannuci was.....Nistlehorse scores.....but he is offside because of the 'active' Dutch player. The law is utter nonesense in both cases and the 'new improved offside rules' (tm FIFA) just make it worse....its like one of those stupid plot twists in cr*p films that make you go

Depends on whether the player in Pannuci's position is playing the ball (he's not), interfering with play (he's not) or gaining an advantage (he's not). If I've got that wrong, tell me.

Consider another scenario.

Defender is by the corner flag, screws up his clearance and two strikers go through the middle, one-two it round the keeper with a forward pass to a player ahead and score. Played onside by lazy-arse down by the corner flag. GOAL.

Swap it round (a bit)

Attacker is by the corner flag, having chased down a long ball. Ball goes central quickly and a goal is scored with the attacker in an offside position but miles wide of goal. Attacker is in an offside position but not playing the ball, interfering or anything. GOAL.

If I've got that wrong, tell me.

You are indeed right..as you are about the 1st Dutch goal...I'm well aware of that..I just think its really poor interpretation of the law...even the Dutch players expected it to be given offside. Its a really stupid way to justify the goal....I doubt the Dutch would have complained that much if it hadn't been given.

How is it a poor interpretation? There is no interpretation that has him declared as not being on the field of play. Had he been fouled in that position, it'd still be a free kick. If he'd fouled an attacker in that position, it'd still be a penalty. A player who goes beyond the pitch markings is not said to have left the field.

Given that leaving the field without permission is a yellow card, do you think every time a player goes off the field like that they should be booked?

The Dutch players thought it was offside for the same reason that most did initially - they hadn't noticed the defender playing them all on.

[Southbank Old Boy]

I'm getting a even more fed up with all the pundits on the TV for todays games.

They're all saying that the law is wrong and they're right. They're even suggesting that the lino got the decision wrong and then they noticed the player on the ground and have used that to justify his mistake in some cover-up to protect him.

Not one of them has the balls to say, yep, he's made a great decision there, fair play to him, job well done and we're completely ignorant of the rules.

The only cover-up here is the TV pundits all covering each others ballsup.

[Southbank Old Boy]

I'm getting a even more fed up with all the pundits on the TV for todays games.

They're all saying that the law is wrong and they're right. They're even suggesting that the lino got the decision wrong and then they noticed the player on the ground and have used that to justify his mistake in some cover-up to protect him.

Not one of them has the balls to say, yep, he's made a great decision there, fair play to him, job well done and we're completely ignorant of the rules.

The only cover-up here is the TV pundits all covering each others ballsup.

[soggy biscuit]

it was an absolutely shocking decision, the officials have had a nightmare and everybody knows it

[soggy biscuit]

UEFA general secretary David Taylor

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

This is a widely known interpretation of the offside law among referees, but it appears not generally known among the wider public.

The officials understood the situation entirely clearly because they had this discussion about a month or two ago. The simplest, the most effective, the most practical interpretation of the law is the one that was adopted by referees.

[soggy biscuit]

Everybody else knows it was a good goal but I have seen all the comments in the English papers about the referee and linesman making a terrible mistake allowing Ruud Van Nistelrooy's goal against Italy. I've read all the stuff about how UEFA should be embarrassed and I have just two words to say to you so called experts : Graham and Poll

[From Despair To Where?]

Did Platini really say that? The man goes even further up in my estimation by the day

[soggy biscuit]

Did Platini really say that? The man goes even further up in my estimation by the day

Apparently so.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

I'm getting a even more fed up with all the pundits on the TV for todays games.

They're all saying that the law is wrong and they're right. .

it is a remarkable stance. How exactly can the rules be wrong? It'd like arguing that the dictionary spelling of a word is wrong because you think it should be different.

[Arch]

But no player is then, which is why I, sensibly, didn't include those two options in my post.

It must have been the 'always' part that misled me. I see now that what you meant was an active defender is always active, and there I'd have to agree with you.

Now you're just being a oxf*rd.

Whaddya mean "now"?!

[soggy biscuit]

It was natural to protest this but the fourth official immediately explained the situation, He told us Panucci was considered to be in an active position.”

[Kitsondinho]

It makes me laugh that so many people on here are gloating about what a great decision it was (how many of you knew the law before this goal?....I didn't). I accept that I was wrong about the law, I honestly didn't know that when Pannuci got whacked in the face by his own goal keeper, he had to ask the ref for permission to writhe around in agony. This would have avoided Van Nistlehorse scoring that goal.....anyone who thinks this is fair and 'within the spirit of the game' and indeed would happily let a goal against Reading like this go by without comment is either lying or a very honourable person. The decision was indeed correct and I'm a grade A prat for not knowing the law, but somehow it just dosen't seem right.