no serious...holland never play good for a long time.
and you dont HAVE TO support spain. just wear something orange and you can support holland

I'm sorry, i can't. Spain are my team for Euro2008.

you disappoint me

I think the goal was onside, otherwise we could all go around standing outside the line by the opposition goal, waiting for the midfielders to just hoof it up the field, knowing we can't be offside. It would just be goal hanging, and would force a defender to stand with the striker at the back, rendering the offside rule useless.

And there's the other argument, that a player could be standing behind the line inside the goal, which could result in a shot that beats the goal keeper bouncing off of the plyer before crossing the line.





ONSIDE

oh come on Sticky lets use a touch of common sense here.

how on earth was that incident even remotely similar to those extreme examples you give?

the rule needs to be specific, clear and obvious.

and for the record, just because it is a rule, it does not make it right.

OFFSIDE

uefa said if panucci was injured he should call the referee to stop the game, in that part of the game, oh yeah

they have a little confusion , or probably they just want to forget about this episode and go on.. I had no doubts about it
it could have been more useful if they would admit the error but they'll never do it

exactly

I think I have found final and unambiguous confirmation that the goal was not valid. Quoting from the Additional Insturctions and Guidelines for Referees that apply to Law 11 (as provided by FIFA in their 2007/08 edition of the Laws of the Game, it's on page 102 for those of u who actually want to look this up):

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 fi eld
of play without the referee’s permission when the ball is next out of
play.

Ok now what is this saying? That a defender CAN put someone else offside by stepping behind his own goal line, but he shoudln't do it on purpose. The only reason why the ref would have been allowed to let play continue and convalidate RVN's goal was if he thought that Panucci had dived on purpose. But that is not the case because he didn't book him afterwards. It follows that RVN was offside. It is incredible that UEFA can claim a different interpretation, when this is in fact an instance which is explicitly covered by a FIFA guideline.

I think this also resolves the issue of "do players off the pitch count for offside purposes". The answer is no, unless they take themselves off the pitch deliberately to gain an unfair advantage. Note that the same principle applies to strikers leaving the pitch to become inactive. This is very fair and makes perfect sense. Alternative interpretations offered by UEFA to support the ref's decision are just gibberish and if accepted by FIFA they would open a massive can of worms.

precisely.

another excellently researched and put forward post mate. impressive.

UEFA will never publicly state anything other than full backing for the referees decision and it appears that one way or another the set rules were not followed. that seems to be undebatable.

Cheers Steeley!

Yes for some reason UEFA and FIFA think their position would somehow become weakened if they ever admitted that a ref has made a mistake. I still remember in the 2002 World Cup when an Italy's goal was disallowed against Korea for offside when the striker was behind the ball, and Italy was knocked out as a result.

That was as blatant a mistake as it gets... did FIFA say anything about it? No way. Why? Mystery.

No one was asking them to reverse the decision... everyone accepts that a ref's decision, right or wrong, is the one that stands. But sometimes these mistakes can point to problems with (for example) the selection process for refs, or the level of FIFA's standards for a ref to qualify for an international game at that level, or the fact that maybe certain situations are not adequately covered by the rules, and additional guidance is needed. It would be right that these problems, once highlighted, are addressed.

Instead the governing bodies bury their head in the ground, pretend nothing has happened, and carry on in exactly the same way. This is why these controversies keep coming up over and over.

exactly.

you see the same scenario almost every week in the Premiership with crazy decisions being left unanswered and unjustified.

it appears in this instance UEFA have hurriedly gone through the rule book for any possible interpretation of the rules in order to fight their corner.

just like the Good Book though, there can be far too many interpretations to it and it needs clearing up and a touch of common sense applied to the situation at hand. they can not argue that that 'rule 11' thing was the rule that allowed the goal to stand when the rule was not properly administered as there was no caution given to Panucci who would have to have been adjudged to have deliberately left the field of play in order to gain an advantage by the referee.

on a side note abc55 i hope to see a lot more of you posting around here on the forum, you are obviously an intelligent person and thats exactly what we want/need/like! keep it up mate

Ths is what rule eleven states of the refereeing code...

" Law 11,article 11.4.1"

"An opposing player cannot be offside when one of the last two defenders has left the field of play"

This was the case with Italian defender Christian Panucci.....

I still think Hollands first goal should still have been ruled out offside,the Italian player was
off the pitch behind the goal lying on his back injured..He was not standing around having a smoke!!
He was not even watching the game at the time of the goal as his hands were covering his face....

Its time this rule was changed so that if it happens again the opposing player will be ruled out offside.

In my opinion this shows that the Refereeing Code should be taken as indication only, but in the event of a controversy one should go to the source (ie the Laws of the Game) and see what they say. Article 11.4.1 of the RC is basically the implementation of the guideline that i mentioned in my previous post, but unfortunately it's missing the key word DELIBERATELY. The fact that the action has left a trace in the type of wording used: "HAS LEFT the field of play", rather than "is not on the field of play" or similar, suggesting an action done out of free will. But this is frankly just speculation.

Regardless, the rules are quite clear, and they state that unless a defender leaves the pitch DELIBERATELY, he does not count for offside determinations. The alternative explanation is that FIFA has cretaed a guideline to cover an eventuality that cannot occur, which is just not credible.

If UEFA/FIFA think now that the current interpretation supported by the rules is not desirable, then they should just say that, review the rules (in consultation as far as possible with all interested parties) and issue new guidance if such is deemed to be the best course of action. That way everyone has clarity on where we stand and what the rules will be going forward.

To sneak in a totally new intrepretation by pretending it was there all along is just wrong. Not to mention the fact that next time that it will suit them they will go back on today's ruling by citing the Laws of the Game instead...

I had never heard of that refereeing code until that incident ? I always looked at the laws of the game.
I think the whole law 11 is a problem with regards to the active/inactive stance as it is not black and white at all.

I think you’ve interpreted the law incorrectly there. That law is only to ascertain the PUNISHMENT for a defender who deliberately tries to leave the pitch to get an opposing player offside (Panucci obviously didn’t leave the pitch deliberately so he wasn’t punished). But it is not about determining the VALIDITY of a goal should such a scenario occur.



Correct. Those are the rules. It may not be right, but it makes the referee's decision right because he administered the laws of the game correctly.

ONSIDE.

Ok...it was onside (people can say what they want but even the Fifa said it was Onside)... but even IF it was offside it doesnt matter cause they did count it as a goal.

Three comments to Johaldo8 post.

First of all, the refereeing code (can someone post a link to the file by the way, there is no such thing on the FIFA website) is not the same as the rules of the game. What I am quoting are the actual rules of the game.

Second, why would FIFA instruct the ref to sanction a behaviour that cannot occur? If you cannot put a player offside by leaving the pitch (which is what you suggest the rules state), how can you be punished for trying to do just that?

Third, what about this scenario: an attacking player has only the goalkeeper in front of him, who is at that time standing beyond the goal line. The ball is now passed to him. Even if you want to count the keeper, this player is offisde - right?

Not according to the Refereeing Code. The goalkeeper is one of the last two defenders, and he is outside the pitch. Therefore the conditions of Article 11.4.1 apply, making the striker on side. Absurd. Or am I missing something?

As I said it would be good if someone could produce an actual link to a FIFA document confirming this 11.4.1 guideline.

Nice, but it's still a smear in the result. I mean, would Italy have been put "out of balance" had the goal not been given? Noone can answer that, so, yes, it's pointless debating it, but it's still important to remove any possible "subjective interptrtation" from the Game, otherwise we'll always have people say that matches have been influenced by the ref.

Fifa said it was Onside...and they also told why, so no need to say different!!!

The way I see it, Italy lost fair and square and if not by 3 goals, then by 2 clear ones.

People claim that the first goal changed the climate of the game and it would have shaped out differently had it not happened etc etc. Maybe true had the game been a 1-0 but it wasn't. It was whitewash that did not flatter to decieve and at the end of it the World Champions lost.

Instead of bemoaning the apparent offside, we should bemoan Italy's lack of intimidation. I mean you'd expect a team of Italy's suppossed caliber to be able to get back into games and have the organisation to repell further attacks but they were neither organised nor defensively sound. Now I am usually the first person to say that Buffon is undeserving of his status as the best GK in the world and maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. I do however know he's better than Edwin Van Der Sar. He didn't look it.

You'd also expect a team of Italy's caliber to have a manager who knows that 2 players over 30 and 1 almost there, would struggle against a midfield of 20-something-year olds. He didn't. Now I can understand playing Pirlo - the man is a dynamo - but Gattuso has been shorn of form all year and Ambrosini did not warrant selection over De Rossi or Aquilani. Truth be told Ambrosini should not have even been on the shortlist for the Azzuri squad. The place could have gone to La Viola's Donadel!

All these issues are subjective, hypothetical and basically impertinant really. But one argument that does hold water is that Italy should be able to put the ball in the back of the net and get back into games! Netherland's scored 3 times offside or not. Italy with Cassano, Toni and Del Piero couldn't do it once. They didn't even have a goal disallowed.

Italy lost. Holland won. End of.