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
Don´t understand why this is even a question to ask, the rule books say the refree was correct and so be it. bit of a shame that its not a well known rule, but it´s still a rule. Obviously, the whole world will be clued up this now.
- Posted by BabsVery interesting. The only thing that dont make sence is that a forward in a offside position is only passive offside if he is not interfearing with play if a ball is put through to a player in a onside position. That player is only called offside if the ball is then passed to him correct? If so was Panucci playing the forward passivly onside? How could he as he was not interfearing with the play but outside the line? I am sure I have seen forwards moving over the boundry line to keep their team mates on side in situations. Plus if a player is in a passive offside position making his team mate onside when can he come back into play again? Is it when the forward movement is complete? ie goal keeper has saved? goal scored? ball goes out? Can he be deemed offside if the ball hits the cross bar or goal keeper & comes back to him when he was origianly in a offside position? Or is it when the other team pulls back to defend behind him? This is confusing to me.
- Posted by ROBYou cant play the ‘he was hurt’ game.
Not in soccer. And SPECIALLY not with italian soccer.
How long was Panucci out for? Did you still think he was hurt when he went after the ref? How about 2 minutes later when he was running with no signs of injury?
Whether he was faking or not has no bearing on this call but you have to admit that Panucci showed in the following seconds and minutes that he WASNT hurt and proves why the rule should stay as is.
All those things said above about how if this rule didnt exist we have players faking injury, Panucci confirmed.
- Posted by Rob EnderleNot surprised.
@- Posted by Dissapointed supporter
that is one of the more foolish analyses of this situation I’ve read.
With your metrics, what is to stop EVERY defender from falling down ‘injured’ the instant they realize they are going to play a player on? Why not have the entire back line fall down injured as soon as any player comes level with them. The rule is a good one and makes sense.
If he was legitimately injured it would suck for him, but it’s part of the game. The ref is going to blow the play dead in that situation (nor should he) Sometimes people will have bad luck. That’s football.
- Posted by papa bearthe law isn’t vague in the least. It can’t delineate every possible situation. It’s pretty clear that you can’t leave the pitch without ref permission and be considered no longer part of the game. I don’t get what’s hard to understand about that?
You leave the pitch without ref permission, you are sitll in play. Simple. Goal stands. (this is coming from a German supporter supporting the Dutch on this as well so c’mon!
)
Also, many think it’s ‘unfair’ since he was ‘injured’ but how often does the ref blow the play dead IMMEDIATELY unpon someone going to ground? The routinely let play go on if the team is attacking and making something happen. If they changed the rule to be immediately stoppage of play you may as well pencil in 0-0 scorelines in all matches from here to eternity.
- Posted by papa bearPlus Panucci got up just fine after the goal and played 90 minutes. He wasn’t that injured.
Two points:
One: as a ref of 10 years, I appreciate and enjoy that the refs nailed this call correctly. At no point in my reffing career do I want to see defenders “accidentally falling” out of bounds to cause an offside situation. Clearly, the Italian defender did not intentionally collide with the keeper, get injured, etc. However, if he were ruled “inactive” then other defensive players would seek to exploit this rule in the future.
Two: Luca Toni is the only person to blame for this goal. He left his mark (Van Nistelroy) and pushed forward, in “an offside trap.” He’s paid millions of dollars to be one of the world’s premier strikers. The refs, who are *not* millionaires, know the rules. So should Toni.
Naturally, I’d be happy to teach him for a modest salary and a small villa in Italy or Munich.
- Posted by RobDclearly offside.
why? when the coaches of germany and portugal and all the dutch players and their coach think it should not have been ruled good, then, perhaps the interpretation of the rule is stupid. i think these guys know something about football.
he was hurt. sad for you people who hide your prejudice in desperately wanting to believe the player was a cheat. he was recently injured, what if re-injured? i am saddened by the obvious stupidity. if the rules declared stand in front of a mack truck how would you interpret them?
- Posted by J SimpsonPeople gotta stay on their feet, on the pitch … good rule, good goal
- Posted by Lawnin CrawfordTo Dissapointed supporter: what if the defender was in the field of play but not active?
How does the referee know if the player that gets knocked down is injured or not. The was a pretty clear cut good call.
- Posted by Omar M.To Bill Ward,
In short, No. An offensive player can be considered inactive, it does not matter if he is over the line or not. A defender cannot be inactive.
- Posted by Omar M.Obviously the goal counts. Dutch goals should always count, as they are the best.
- Posted by DoodlesI agree with the above. How can an injured player be deemed as one of the two whom play the striker onside. If he were not injured he would therefore be actively playing the striker onside, but if injured, how can he be actively doing anything, not to mention playing the striker on side.
If a striker is standing in an offside position, but not having an active part in the forward move, then they are not deemed offside, because they are not active! Injured or not injured. Therefore if a defender is injured and cannot play an active role, how can we deem him to be actively playing a striker on-side?
All this aside Pannucci was injured AND off the pitch!
- Posted by Dissapointed supporterI am a referee and this interpretation is taught even at the most basic levels. I was watching the game with 5 friends and all of them jumped immediately to said it was off side. My referee mode kicked in and I immediately said valid. For the day to day fan, it is not so obvious, for referees it is very obvious. I don’t think the law itself needs to be clarified. Laws start to get messy when you try to cover all crazy situations that happen everyday in a football field
- Posted by IvanA Sunday league ref writes: This is total back-covering garbage from UEFA - or should it be FIFA since they are the guardians of the laws. Nowhere in the laws of the game or the accompanying guidelines for referees does it state or even hint that a player on the ground beyond the byline should be considered to be part of the action.
- Posted by WarrenThe only reference that even comes close is for a situation when a defender deliberately steps off the field of play in an attempt to play an attacker offside -in which case he is deemed to still be part of the action.
To extrapolate this to include a player knocked over by his own goalkeeper and lying on the floor three yards beyond the byline is farcial.
I remember when offside was as simple as a salt and pepper pot and a bowl of sugar.
[...] Source: Mike Collett [...]
- Posted by Soccer Camps » Blog Archive » Should ref have called Van Nistelrooy goal offside?Injured? Panucci wasn’t injured. He just got knocked down by his own goalkeeper. In any other sport, a player in that kind of situation would bounce right back up and get back into the action as fast as possible. But in soccer it unfortunately sometimes pays to “play possum”. I think it’s great that the goal counted, that the ref wasn’t fooled or distracted and that a player seemingly feigning injury ended up hurting his teammates. It would be good to see more of that in soccer — just stay on your feet. Just before that in the 18th minute, Van Nistelrooy had stayed on his feet after Buffon tripped him. He could have fallen and got the penalty. But he didn’t. He stumbled but made every effort to stay on his feet. A great moment for fairness.
- Posted by Erik KirschbaumAll of this raises another quetion: If the injured player off the pitch were on the attacking team, wouldn’t an offside call be automatic as soon as that team passed the ball forward? And with that being the case, shouldn’t the officials immediately stop play when such a player is injured behind the goal?
- Posted by Bill WardLaw 11, relating to offsides, was correctly interpreted by the match officials and any review of this rule will open a can of worms.
It would be extremely difficult for match officials to determine if players are indeed injured or faking injury just to rule a player off-side. While a player is still on the field of play he is regarded as a ctive player and only when a player leaves the field of play should that player be regarded as inactive.
- Posted by ByronThere’s no way that goal should have been allowed. Why would the referee choose to observe the letter of the law in such an instance where a judgment call and the so-called spirit of the law should have been observed. It’s sad any time you know a referee’s name as well as the guys scoring goals in a game.
- Posted by MikeIn the end though, it probably wouldn’t have mattered much. I think Italy missed Cannavaro more than it will admit, and Donadoni is going to be exposed in this tournament.
http://startingeleven.blogspot.com/2008/ 06/spirit-of-euro-2008-sapped-by-italy.h tml
If you’re going to change anything one will need to consider both the situation where one of the two defenders is laying on the ground, potentially injured, on or off the field, as they are roughly the same case. If Panucci, instead of being off the field, was on top of the goal line, but inside the field, would there have been any controversy? If you change the law, can a player that is not obviously injured, but is laying on the ground because of incidental contact, count as one of the two?
- Posted by Mia Via