Holland v Italy

[Thaumagurist*]

.

[readingbedding]

Italy striker Luca Toni, who was booked for protesting the goal, said: "I looked at the replay during the match and it looked to me as if it was offside.
"I said to the referee, 'look at the replay'. But he didn't look so that was that."

How did he look at a replay?

On the big screen perhaps?

[soggy biscuit]

Italy striker Luca Toni, who was booked for protesting the goal, said: "I looked at the replay during the match and it looked to me as if it was offside.
"I said to the referee, 'look at the replay'. But he didn't look so that was that."

How did he look at a replay?

Big screen tv in the stadium. You can always tell when they are showing replays as you hear large groans/cheers from the crowd at the same time you see the replay on your tv at home

[Thaumagurist*]

.

[Dirk Gently]

On the big screen perhaps?

I did think that, but aren't they not allowed to show controversial incidents on it?

There's no way they'd not replay a goal being scored.

[readingbedding]

Also, I've noticed that when the linesman has given a tight offside decision and the camera is trained on them, a couple of times the linesman is looking at something which would certainly suggest a replay on a big screen within the ground.

[Muskrat]

Lets face it the law is an ass. How can it be right that a player who is not on the pitch can play a stiker onside. It's also contradictary as we've seen instances before when players deliberately step off the pitch in order to make themselves inactive.

Needs sorting or it's gonna just be another way to confuse the already bewildering interpretations of the offside law.

[sheshnu]

Imagine a situation at a free kick where two defenders stand on the posts, but they make sure they position their feet just behind the goal line. Would they be playing the attacking team onside? Of course they would, and it's the interpretation of that same law here.

Offside rule = simple

[Southbank Old Boy]

Lets face it the law is an ass. How can it be right that a player who is not on the pitch can play a stiker onside. It's also contradictary as we've seen instances before when players deliberately step off the pitch in order to make themselves inactive.

Needs sorting or it's gonna just be another way to confuse the already bewildering interpretations of the offside law.

If an attacker moves away from the play so as not to gain an advantage from his position (walking off the pitch would probably be the case) then he isn't offside and I'm assuming the instances you can remember are attackers.

Defenders are always taken into consideration whereever they happen to be on the pitch. That's the way it's always been.

The offside law is a bit of an ass though, although nowhere near as much as the people who get it wrong all the time whilst being paid for "expert" opinions!

[Nick Shorey my Lord!]

I'll happily admit I was in the "offside" brigade but thanks to this thread I now understand.

Thank you all.

Now if you could explain time-travel that would be great.

[3 veesinarow]

So basically no one knows 100% if it WAS offside or not, because the whole active/inactive thing is being dragged up....for a bl**dy defender this time...sort it out FIFA!

Got nothing to do with him being active or inactive. He's in advance of the attacker and behind the goal line is still considered to be part of the playing area for a defender. It was 100% onside as defined by the laws of the game. If a defender fannying about near the corner flag 50 yds from play is active in playing someone onside then so can a defender who has stepped behind the goal line in the natural course of the game.

Poll is a publicity seaking arse who would argue black is white if it got him noticed.

How is it nothing to do with inactive? If the assistant ref considers the italian defender as active the goal stands. If he doesn't, its offside.

Also can someone please explain how a player down injured is active in play, when he behind the goal line, if a striker can avoid being offisde by crossing the very same goal line, thus making himself inactive?

A striker cannot avoid being given offside if he steps off the pitch - he SHOULD be flagged, end of story. I had this whilst lining a local U16s game just before Xmas - a lad who was in an offside position stepped off the pitch just beside me (accidentally or otherwise, he may not genuinely have seen the line beneath his feet) as the ball was played towards him. He then stepped back on, collected the ball and made towards goal. I flagged him off and got a torrent of abuse from hormonal 16yo's and a line of spectators who though I was plain stupid - all had the same argument that you can't be offside if you're off the pitch when the ball is played.

Bollox, I say...learn the rules, people.

[soggy biscuit]

The reason I immediately called it as onside was that I put a similar scenario to my reffing mate (did I mention him before ) to try and catch him out a little while ago and he explanied this to me. I think mine was something to do with stepping inside the goal to catch someone out.

I did manage to catch him out though with a double yellow card situation when play is allowed to continue to give the other team the advantage. He was stumped and said he would just hope that no one noticed.

[papereyes]

So basically, the rule is in place to stop people deliberately using the goal line as a loophole.

Now, you could argue that Panucci did not do that deliberately but how could you ever have told in the seconds it took between keeper-defender collision and goal? And can you trust a modern, professional footballer not to feign injury?

[TBM]

At the end of the day had Panucci landed on the line nobody would have been arguing this onside/offside business but just because he fell behind the line they are - treat him falling behind the line as being on the line, its the same difference as he wouldn't have made any difference to the final outcome of the attack.

[Arch]

At the end of the day had Panucci landed on the line nobody would have been arguing this onside/offside business but just because he fell behind the line they are - treat him falling behind the line as being on the line, its the same difference as he wouldn't have made any difference to the final outcome of the attack.

Spot on. The only thing you could do to change the situation is have the ref signal that an injured player is out of consideration somewhat like signalling that he's playing advantage. I'm not in favour of a lot of extra hand-waving on behalf of the referees, though. I'm entertained by how some people think that FIFA could "sort it" in a way that would make it less confusing. What would that be? You've got three choices: every player off the field is out of play; every player is in play at any time, on or off the field; a player is in play until the ref indicates he is out of play (for example by inviting him off the field). The third has by far the least scope for confusion, in my view, although that may not be evident from this particular incident.

[papereyes]

At the end of the day had Panucci landed on the line nobody would have been arguing this onside/offside business but just because he fell behind the line they are - treat him falling behind the line as being on the line, its the same difference as he wouldn't have made any difference to the final outcome of the attack.

Spot on. The only thing you could do to change the situation is have the ref signal that an injured player is out of consideration somewhat like signalling that he's playing advantage. I'm not in favour of a lot of extra hand-waving on behalf of the referees, though. I'm entertained by how some people think that FIFA could "sort it" in a way that would make it less confusing. What would that be? You've got three choices: every player off the field is out of play; every player is in play at any time, on or off the field; a player is in play until the ref indicates he is out of play (for example by inviting him off the field). The third has by far the least scope for confusion, in my view, although that may not be evident from this particular incident.

In this incident, the referee woul dhave had about 5 seconds to indicate that Panucci was not 'active'.

But, as far as I can tell, a defender is always 'active' when considering if someone is offside or not.

[Arch]

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

[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.