Some you win and some you lose but it looks like almost every journalist and most TV commentators, as well as the Italian players, were totally wrong in claiming Ruud Van Nistelrooy’s opening goal against Italy in Netherlands’ 3-0 win in Berne on Monday was offside.
UEFA have confirmed that referee Peter Frojdfeldt and his assistant Stefan Wittberg were absolutely correct in awarding the goal. UEFA general secretary David Taylor said the ref interpreted Law 11 relating to offside correctly and the reason why is this:
Even though Italian defender Chrstian Panucci was off the pitch after an accidental collision with his own goalkeeper Gianluigi Buffon, he was deemed to still be in active play and therefore playing Van Nistelrooy onside.
His position is “assumed” to be on the goal-line and therefore Van Nistelrooy had two opposing players between him and the goal when he scored. The law is vague on the issue and Taylor admits it does not specifically cover incidents such as the one that occurred last night.
It also raises a whole lot of questions. If the law is not specific on the issue and open to interpretation by the referee, then shouldn’t it be more specific? Shouldn’t it be re-written?
The officials might have applied the universally accepted interpretation of the law and been exonerated … but is the universal interpretation really in the spirit of the game? You have to bear in mind of course that a defender should not be allowed to step outside the field of play behind the goal-line to render the opposing attacker offside.
Also, if Panucci had not been injured and lying on his back, and had merely stepped over the line a few feet and then raced back on to the field, he would not have needed the referee’s permission to do so.
On reflection, I agree the referee and linesman were right. But I think the law needs looking at. What do you think?
PHOTO: Players react to Ruud van Nistelrooy’s goal at the Stade de Suisse in Berne, June 9, 2008. REUTERS/Jerry Lampen
Trackback
24 comments so far
Previous | 2 | 1 | Next
i think according to the law the goal counts and the ref was right. u refferee a match according to the law….thats it!! so, it counts….
- Posted by Siddharthin any case, dutch scored 2 more…..so, no issues even if FIFA wants to take that goal out now
He’s off the field!!! He is not in the field of play!! just like when someone gets injured he goes off the field and is not playing!! This is the most ridiculous rule of all rules! Doesnt not make sense! Every law abiding text, such as the U.S. constitution can be amended. This bad law should be changed!!
- Posted by MarioIt’s amazing how many people do not understand the offside rule. I’ve played in recreational games against good technically gifted players who think you can’t be offside on a headed ball, but can be offside on a throw in directly to a player behind the defense. It’s unsurprising so many people were confused by this call.
The only question here is whether Panucci was actively involved in the play. In this case, he was knocked over and landed on the ground. If he had landed in the field of play, there’d be no discussion. Since he was over the end line, there is a question of whether he was ‘active.’ Since there was no stoppage in play, he was indeed active. FIFA’s rules do clearly state that a player cannot step over the endline to become inactive, so it is clear that it is up to the referees to determine if play should be stopped. Refs rarely, if ever, stop play in the middle of a goal scoring opportunity, hence Panucci was judged to be an active, albeit unlucky, defender. Not only was the call correct, it was consistent with the spirit of the game and the norm of not immediately stopping play for a player on the ground.
- Posted by GregI don’t know why TV and other media broadcasters don’t have an “expert” on the rules on hand to explain decisions like this. It took me about 5 minutes on Google to find the reference in the USSF Advice to Referees on Laws of the Game. Section 11.11 gives the current interpretaion in black and white- “a defender who leaves the field in the course of play…must still be considered… for the purpose of judging if the attackers are in an offside position…”
That is exactly what happened- Panucci left the field in the course of play- he could have been up in the stands buying a hot dog, or laying on the ground bleeding from his ears after being cuffed by his own GK- but he is considered to be on the field at the goal line for the purposes of the offside law. Good for the linesman for getting it right! As a rule, ex-players who are color announcers NEVER agree with refs calls and they are almost ALWAYS wrong. (That means you Julie Foudy).
- Posted by Pete