Euro 2008

[Camiel]

When you read all the blogs about Euro 2008, that goal is always the heat of the discussion. Anyway, Panucci was over the endline, but without permission from the referee, so he was still part of the game and with that Van Nistelrooy was (surprisingly) onside. Even if you say that Panucci was injured (by Buffon btw), the referee hadn't stopped the match. Besides after the goal, Panucci suddenly wasn't injured anymore.... so.... and anyway, we still outclassed Italy, so meh.

(I also thought it was offside btw).

[matt]

not wanting to get all statto about it, but the first goal was technically onside and so was right to be allowed. just because panucci was off the field of play, he's still considered active for the offside law.

harsh but fair as they say...

[Camiel]

Link

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."

[sanblaster]

BBC 5 ON THE TRAIN FTW!

[sanblaster]

Not being able to colour letters anymore sucks, tho.

[potatobroth]

Its absolutely a goal. If you leave the field on your own, you are part of the play. I don't see where this can be controversial in any way.

[Rog]

Originally Posted by potatobroth

Its absolutely a goal. .

well the referee gave it so there's no argument there!.........and i've bet on Holland to win the whole tourny!

[big screen satellite]

Originally Posted by Rog

well the referee gave it so there's no argument there!.........and i've bet on Holland to win the whole tourny!

nice one,

i had holland to win 2-1 with van nist first goal - so the bloody italians let me down...

[matt]

surprised no-one's mentioned yesterday's other match yet - the absolute snooze fest that was france romania. thankfully only caught the last 30mins or so, so didn't have to endure the whole thing.

looking at the so called group of death now though, i reckon if france don't beat the dutch in their next game then they're out as i'd expect the italians to see of the romanian's and then hold france to a draw.

obviously early days yet, but at the moment you'd have to say the germans, portugese & dutch look like likely winners. i know we haven't seen spain yet but their big tournament record speaks for itself...

[Camiel]

Hehe, France - Romania was a typical group of death match. Bored to death that is. No ideas, no imagination and most of all something I've noticed, an utter lack of dribbling skills on both sides. They could only pass their opponent by running faster than the other. France certainly misses Zidane and Ribèry was not good against Romania. Oh well, it's much too early to say that we will beat France though, but yesterday's match certainly made my optimism grow.