Comments on: Should ref have called Van Nistelrooy goal offside?

By: Siddharth

Siddharth — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:31:11 +0000

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….
in any case, dutch scored 2 more…..so, no issues even if FIFA wants to take that goal out now

By: Mario

Mario — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:03:40 +0000

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!!

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:45:14 +0000

It’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.

By: Pete

Pete — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:19:29 +0000

I 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).

By: Babs

Babs — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:32:34 +0000

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.

By: ROB

ROB — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:12:40 +0000

Very 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.

By: Rob Enderle

Rob Enderle — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:35:33 +0000

You 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.
Not surprised.

By: papa bear

papa bear — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:11:25 +0000

@- 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.

By: papa bear

papa bear — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:06:16 +0000

the 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.
Plus Panucci got up just fine after the goal and played 90 minutes. He wasn’t that injured.

By: RobD

RobD — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:37:34 +0000

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.