West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Sports & Entertainment => Topic started by: smegma on June 10, 2008, 04:08:48 AM
-
(http://www.euro2008.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Photo/competitions/EURO/71/08/45/710845_w2.jpg) (http://www.euro2008.uefa.com/news/kind=1/newsid=711341.html#uefa+supports+dutch+goal+decision)
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."
-
what a fuckin stupid interpretation ::)
-
what a fuckin stupid interpretation ::)
It's what the rules state. There isn't any room for interpretation.
-
what a fuckin stupid interpretation ::)
It's what the rules state. There isn't any room for interpretation.
ok,but don't you think its a fuckin stupid rule ? c'mon,panucci was INJURED at the moment!
-
what a fuckin stupid interpretation ::)
It's what the rules state. There isn't any room for interpretation.
ok,but don't you think its a fuckin stupid rule ? c'mon,panucci was INJURED at the moment!
No, Elaine. If there's anything that could be interpreted as stupid it are the Italian protests. :-*
-
what a fuckin stupid interpretation ::)
It's what the rules state. There isn't any room for interpretation.
ok,but don't you think its a fuckin stupid rule ? c'mon,panucci was INJURED at the moment!
No, Elaine. If there's anything that could be interpreted as stupid it are the Italian protests. :-*
:nawty:
-
why is it stupid?
so u think players should just be allowed to step outside the field all the time so people will be offside?
-
why is it stupid?
so u think players should just be allowed to step outside the field all the time so people will be offside?
not all the time,but if somebody is injured.....he can't be an active part of the action
-
he wasn't injured he just got pushed out of the field by buffon :laugh:
-
Netherlands>Italy
-
he wasn't injured he just got pushed out of the field by buffon :laugh:
at that time,he was injured ::)
-
Netherlands>Italy
MAYBE only during the 70s and during the time with van basten gullit rijkaard :tosser:
how many world cup has won ? :D
-
It was a goal. Nobody cries about it , Holland destroyd them. It could have been worse, like 4-0
-
Yep good rule.
-
at that time,he was injured ::)
yeah, but the difference is that referee has to stop the game if someone is injured...he didn't...
-
at that time,he was injured ::)
yeah, but the difference is that referee has to stop the game if someone is injured...he didn't...
no,if the player is outside the game rectangle
-
I read on a Norwegian site that the rule was followed by the ref, so the goal is spot on.
-
Even if it was offside (it wasn't), Italy still would have been beat by the better team on the day.
-
Even if it was offside (it wasn't), Italy still would have been beat by the better team on the day.
IT WAS offside,but holland have deserved to win.
i don't have problems to admit it
-
lol @ elano.
-
I give up
-
Panucci was out of bounds and completely incapable of participating in any kind of way...he was lying on the ground, not even aware of what was happening, so it was pure luck for the Dutch, that needs to be acknowledged as much as that the goal was according to the rules and the referee's decision hence correct. Those Italian newspaper people (I read one article today) whining about it over 12 pages are a bunch of losers.
What a lot of people did overlook is that right after the 1-0, there was a clear foul by some Dutch defender in the penalty area. Italy would have had to get a penalty kick and I'm still wondering what would have happened if they'd equalized at that point...or if that Bayern homo Luca Toni had availed himself of the opportunity you get from being alone in 12-metre distance from the opponent's goal, but oh well
-
That rule is terrible, and -1 to Kill for dissing Bayern ;)
-
+1 for agreeing the rule sucks
-1 for dissing me
-100 for liking Bayern
-500 for having Ballack in your avatar and sig
____________
= -600 to 7even's karma
^ wow. now that will take some time.
-
+1 for agreeing the rule sucks
-1 for dissing me
-100 for liking Bayern
-500 for having Ballack in your avatar and sig
____________
= -600 to 7even's karma
^ wow. now that will take some time.
LOL :laugh:
-
They fucked up, it was offside but a technicality deems that they are "correct".
Either way Holland whooped some Italy anus.
-
How does that rule suck? Any player from the opposite team could just step out of the field in dangerous situations.
In this case it was even Italy's own fault that he was laying there.
-
How does that rule suck? Any player from the opposite team could just step out of the field in dangerous situations.
In this case it was even Italy's own fault that he was laying there.
Are you sure you wouldn't think the rule sucks if the Italians had scored this kind of goal? Offsides in professional modern soccer happen extremely quickly and the defender's position is usually not next to that line...stepping out of the field on purpose to prevent an offside couldn't happen for the simple reason that there would be no time for it, it's not like players see it coming 10 seconds in advance so they can think "hey, let's just get off the field, so I can prevent this from happening" and actually do it. No frickin way. Also you can usually judge quite easily if the player's (able to get) involved in the game, which Panucci was obviously not, which means you could also make that question part of the rule (it IS part of the passive-offside rule, too).
Again, the goal was regular, and you're entitled to think it's a great rule, but there is no way it could be intentionally misused if it were reversed.
-
Those Italian newspaper people (I read one article today) whining about it over 12 pages are a bunch of losers.
12 pages ? you are bullshitting :loser: :nawty:
if that Bayern homo Luca Toni had availed himself of the opportunity you get from being alone in 12-metre distance from the opponent's goal, but oh well
you don't even know how many goals has scored luca toni for bayern.
homo ? ::) toni is a very good player,c'mon
-
In this case it was even Italy's own fault that he was laying there.
are you joking ? :D
-
Those Italian newspaper people (I read one article today) whining about it over 12 pages are a bunch of losers.
12 pages ? you are bullshitting :loser: :nawty:
if that Bayern homo Luca Toni had availed himself of the opportunity you get from being alone in 12-metre distance from the opponent's goal, but oh well
you don't even know how many goals has scored luca toni for bayern.
homo ? ::) toni is a very good player,c'mon
1. Don't be so literal-minded. They just kept going on and on and on about it
2. Toni is a good player, yes, I just don't like him and I like Bayern even less
-
Those Italian newspaper people (I read one article today) whining about it over 12 pages are a bunch of losers.
12 pages ? you are bullshitting :loser: :nawty:
if that Bayern homo Luca Toni had availed himself of the opportunity you get from being alone in 12-metre distance from the opponent's goal, but oh well
you don't even know how many goals has scored luca toni for bayern.
homo ? ::) toni is a very good player,c'mon
1. Don't be so literal-minded. They just kept going on and on and on about it
2. Toni is a good player, yes, I just don't like him and I like Bayern even less
1)it would have been the same for any other country
2) :-X
-
^ true, but many Italians, including journalists, have this special way of getting sentimental about calcio
-
Those Italian newspaper people (I read one article today) whining about it over 12 pages are a bunch of losers.
LMAO. So you read italian newspapers? Wonderful, we can discuss about them. Which one did you read? Cause i've read them all (they're all online after 4 pm, you can read every page in .pdf format).
Stop lying.
Corriere dello Sport titled: "Donadoni Disaster"
Tuttosport titled: "Give us Lippi back!"
Gazzetta dello Sport titled: "Damn what a loss!" (i can't translate it litterally but that's the meaning). And the sub-titled is "Donadoni made more mistakes than the refs".
Nobody bitched about the refs. We're blaming Donadoni, Materazzi, Barzagli and Di Natale.
It's just that it is a situation so strange that everybody is talking about it.
Yesterday Gallas said it was a cristalline offside, just to make you an example.. And former ref Collina too.
-
Di Natale? He really wasn't that bad, certainly no worse than Camoranesi.
It was disgusting Donadoni started without Grosso and De Rossi in the first place.
-
Di Natale? He really wasn't that bad, certainly no worse than Camoranesi.
It was disgusting Donadoni started without Grosso and De Rossi in the first place.
Di Natale's problem is that Donadoni benched Cassano and Del Piero to let him start. And both Cassano and Del Piero not only are 10x better than him, but they played 10x better than him too. Di Natale is like Donadoni's pupil. He's a nobody, he plays for a middle-level team, and he will never play in a top team. Just like Donadoni.