FIFA will
- Thread starter DR STRANGELOVE
- Start date
that is what the controversy is all about...
on one hand people are saying>>>>>
From Advice to Referees
11.11:
"A defender who leaves the field during the course of play and does not immediately return must still be considered in determining where the second to last defender is for the purpose of judging which attackers are in an offside position. Such a defender is considered to be on the touch line or goal line closest to his or her off-field position. A defender who leaves the field with the referee's permission (and who thus requires the referee's permission to return) is not included in determining offside position."
on the other hand>>>>>
Anyone interested in the interpretation of the first goal should consult the FIFA Laws of the Game (PDF) and look at "Law 11: Offside":
Quote:
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 field
of play without the referee?s permission when the ball is next out of
play.
The wording throughout this section is clearly stated to avoid unsportsmanlike behavior that would take advantage of the offside rule, for both defenders and attackers.
In the case today, Panucci clearly did not "step behind his own goal line" or "deliberately leave the field of play" to put RVN in an offside position. Perhaps he deliberately stayed on the ground after Buffon decked him, but there is no evidence he had any awareness of doing so with the explicit intent of playing any Dutch player offside.
I think it was a blown call, later justified with some spin on the "rules"--but it's a rather harsh interpretation, IMO. 99/100 linesmen raise the flag for that on the spot.
It certainly influenced the rest of the game as you can see goals 2 and 3 resulted directly from counter-attacks off of goalmouth clearances.
All props to Gio van Bronckhorst, though.
on one hand people are saying>>>>>
From Advice to Referees
11.11:
"A defender who leaves the field during the course of play and does not immediately return must still be considered in determining where the second to last defender is for the purpose of judging which attackers are in an offside position. Such a defender is considered to be on the touch line or goal line closest to his or her off-field position. A defender who leaves the field with the referee's permission (and who thus requires the referee's permission to return) is not included in determining offside position."
on the other hand>>>>>
Anyone interested in the interpretation of the first goal should consult the FIFA Laws of the Game (PDF) and look at "Law 11: Offside":
Quote:
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 field
of play without the referee?s permission when the ball is next out of
play.
The wording throughout this section is clearly stated to avoid unsportsmanlike behavior that would take advantage of the offside rule, for both defenders and attackers.
In the case today, Panucci clearly did not "step behind his own goal line" or "deliberately leave the field of play" to put RVN in an offside position. Perhaps he deliberately stayed on the ground after Buffon decked him, but there is no evidence he had any awareness of doing so with the explicit intent of playing any Dutch player offside.
I think it was a blown call, later justified with some spin on the "rules"--but it's a rather harsh interpretation, IMO. 99/100 linesmen raise the flag for that on the spot.
It certainly influenced the rest of the game as you can see goals 2 and 3 resulted directly from counter-attacks off of goalmouth clearances.
All props to Gio van Bronckhorst, though.
It sounds completely and utterly different to what happened today... to such an extent I imagine you either didn't watch what happened today or you didn't watch the Bayern match. The report says...
Replays showed Lars Ricken ran off the field (over the endline) DURING THE RUN OF PLAY, important, and then hesitated before stepping back on right when Pizarro hit the winner, thus, keeping the Peruvian onside.
The important phrase there as far as I can see is the bit that says, 'and then hesitated'. It's perfectly obvious from that description that the fella was deliberately trying to use the rules to circumvent the intention of the law.
The piece goes on to say...
n this case, the second ruling (11:11) is the one we should examine closer because that is the one that applies. After watching the play again recently, it is very clear Ricken DID NOT intentionally step off the field of play to create an offside call and Pizarro is clearly past the last defender.
I tracked down referee Michael Weiner only for him to say he doesn't comment on matches. But he did say his first job was to determine if Ricken stayed off the field longer than he had to after his slide-tackle carried him off the field of play.
Over the air, I said had Ricken stayed off he would've kept Pizarro offside. However, since Ricken did not immediately return, as judged by the referee, the goal stood, as it should have. So just like so many offside calls, the interpretation is subject, to well, subjectivity, in determining whether or not a player is offside.
So, contrary to the hyperbole from some quarters, (although it only confirms what those of us who've been watching the game for the past several decades already knew), the laws of the game are NOT a complete description of every possible permutation that might ever occur. They have to be interpreted.
As the referee in the instance YOU, YOURSELF, HAVE SELECTED, said, he ',did say his first job was to determine if Ricken stayed off the field longer than he had to after his slide-tackle carried him off the field of play'. So, apparently, it IS relevant whether the fella could get back onto the field under his own steam and the ref. (as I said), made a judgment as to the condition of the player involved.
My own interpretation of what happened is that the ref thought the defender was making a meal of the contact with his own keeper, (although who he collided with is utterly irrelevant for these purposes, it has to be said), and decided that he could have easily have got up again, as the other two players involved with the collision had done.
So, personally, I haven't really got a problem with the decision as I think the Italian was using gamesmanship, (or, cheating, as the rest of the world calls it), to gain an advantage. What I have got a problem with, though, is people pretending that it's a cut and dried case... IT'S NOT!!!
As I say, I'd be very, very surprised if anyone can truly find another instance that's quite like this one.
Replays showed Lars Ricken ran off the field (over the endline) DURING THE RUN OF PLAY, important, and then hesitated before stepping back on right when Pizarro hit the winner, thus, keeping the Peruvian onside.
The important phrase there as far as I can see is the bit that says, 'and then hesitated'. It's perfectly obvious from that description that the fella was deliberately trying to use the rules to circumvent the intention of the law.
The piece goes on to say...
n this case, the second ruling (11:11) is the one we should examine closer because that is the one that applies. After watching the play again recently, it is very clear Ricken DID NOT intentionally step off the field of play to create an offside call and Pizarro is clearly past the last defender.
I tracked down referee Michael Weiner only for him to say he doesn't comment on matches. But he did say his first job was to determine if Ricken stayed off the field longer than he had to after his slide-tackle carried him off the field of play.
Over the air, I said had Ricken stayed off he would've kept Pizarro offside. However, since Ricken did not immediately return, as judged by the referee, the goal stood, as it should have. So just like so many offside calls, the interpretation is subject, to well, subjectivity, in determining whether or not a player is offside.
So, contrary to the hyperbole from some quarters, (although it only confirms what those of us who've been watching the game for the past several decades already knew), the laws of the game are NOT a complete description of every possible permutation that might ever occur. They have to be interpreted.
As the referee in the instance YOU, YOURSELF, HAVE SELECTED, said, he ',did say his first job was to determine if Ricken stayed off the field longer than he had to after his slide-tackle carried him off the field of play'. So, apparently, it IS relevant whether the fella could get back onto the field under his own steam and the ref. (as I said), made a judgment as to the condition of the player involved.
My own interpretation of what happened is that the ref thought the defender was making a meal of the contact with his own keeper, (although who he collided with is utterly irrelevant for these purposes, it has to be said), and decided that he could have easily have got up again, as the other two players involved with the collision had done.
So, personally, I haven't really got a problem with the decision as I think the Italian was using gamesmanship, (or, cheating, as the rest of the world calls it), to gain an advantage. What I have got a problem with, though, is people pretending that it's a cut and dried case... IT'S NOT!!!
As I say, I'd be very, very surprised if anyone can truly find another instance that's quite like this one.
As a neutral fan and observer:
he was offsides, peroid.
Calls and non-calls like that change games, but make no mistake. Dutch were dominating the match at that point.
The second goal was pure brilliance IMO.
he was offsides, peroid.
Calls and non-calls like that change games, but make no mistake. Dutch were dominating the match at that point.
The second goal was pure brilliance IMO.
Bender:
Holy crap, did Italy look old.
I knew Donadoni was coming back, but I didn't know he was gonna suit up.
Holy crap, did Italy look old.
I knew Donadoni was coming back, but I didn't know he was gonna suit up.
italy media (newspapers and radio) are ripping donaldoni apart for his starting line up and team tactics.
italy must win friday, if not bye bye azzuri
italy must win friday, if not bye bye azzuri
Dr Strangeglove:
Do you have a link to a good Italy newspaper, written in English?
Thx!
GL, buddy.
Do you have a link to a good Italy newspaper, written in English?
Thx!
GL, buddy.
no sir, read forum and their papers online.
Though there is a newspaper here in Toronto that is in english, called th gazetta.
One paper's headline was "might as well stop playing" lol
harsh....
I thought the Toronto media was tough on the maple leafs....
Though there is a newspaper here in Toronto that is in english, called th gazetta.
One paper's headline was "might as well stop playing" lol
harsh....
I thought the Toronto media was tough on the maple leafs....
Ref right to award Ruud goal, says UEFA
Updated: June 10, 2008, 8:12 AM ET
Comment
Email
Print
BASEL, June 10 (Reuters) - Netherlands' controversial first goal in Monday's 3-0 Group C victory over world champions Italy at Euro 2008 was correctly awarded despite many observers believing it was offside, organisers UEFA said on Tuesday.
UEFA general secretary David Taylor told a news conference the officials correctly interpreted Law 11 which relates to offside when Ruud van Nistelrooy scored after 26 minutes.
He stated that Christian Panucci played him onside although the Italian defender was off the pitch at the time.
'The goal was correctly awarded. Not many people, even in the game, and I include the players, know this interpretation (of Law 11),' Taylor said.
He conceded, however: 'The Law itself does not deal with this situation directly at all,' but said that referees universally interpreted it in the way that the officials did on Monday night.
He said he had every sympathy with the wider footballing public for believing the officials called it wrong but said that Swedish referee Peter Frojdfeldt and his assistant Stefan Wittberg were absolutely correct in their interpretation.
Taylor told reporters: 'Even though the Italian defender (Christian Panucci) was off the field because of his momentum, he is still deemed to be part of the game and is therefore taken into considersation as one of the last two defending players.
'As a result Ruud Van Nistelrooy was not nearer the opponents' goalline than the second last defender and therefore could not be in an offside position.'
'This is a widely known interpretation of the offside law among referees but is not generally known by the wider footballing public and indeed many people in football,' he said.
'That is understandable because incidents like this are very unusual.
'However, there was a similar incident in a Swiss League match about a month ago between Sion and FC Basel and after a TV commentator initially suggested the referee had made a mistake, he later apologised publicly and congratulations to him.'
The goal caused confusion among both the Italian and Dutch players too, a number of whom looked astonished when the goal was awarded.
It also provoked some angry reaction among the Italian fans when it was replayed on the giant screens inside the Stade de Suisse stadium and led to Luca Toni being booked for dissent for protesting.
Taylor said his yellow card would stand and that goals would still be replayed on the screens throughout the tournament.
The International Football Association Board, the guardian of the game's laws, had the prerogative to examine the law if they thought the wording needed to be clarified or a loophole existed, Taylor said.
Updated: June 10, 2008, 8:12 AM ET
Comment
BASEL, June 10 (Reuters) - Netherlands' controversial first goal in Monday's 3-0 Group C victory over world champions Italy at Euro 2008 was correctly awarded despite many observers believing it was offside, organisers UEFA said on Tuesday.
UEFA general secretary David Taylor told a news conference the officials correctly interpreted Law 11 which relates to offside when Ruud van Nistelrooy scored after 26 minutes.
He stated that Christian Panucci played him onside although the Italian defender was off the pitch at the time.
'The goal was correctly awarded. Not many people, even in the game, and I include the players, know this interpretation (of Law 11),' Taylor said.
He conceded, however: 'The Law itself does not deal with this situation directly at all,' but said that referees universally interpreted it in the way that the officials did on Monday night.
He said he had every sympathy with the wider footballing public for believing the officials called it wrong but said that Swedish referee Peter Frojdfeldt and his assistant Stefan Wittberg were absolutely correct in their interpretation.
Taylor told reporters: 'Even though the Italian defender (Christian Panucci) was off the field because of his momentum, he is still deemed to be part of the game and is therefore taken into considersation as one of the last two defending players.
'As a result Ruud Van Nistelrooy was not nearer the opponents' goalline than the second last defender and therefore could not be in an offside position.'
'This is a widely known interpretation of the offside law among referees but is not generally known by the wider footballing public and indeed many people in football,' he said.
'That is understandable because incidents like this are very unusual.
'However, there was a similar incident in a Swiss League match about a month ago between Sion and FC Basel and after a TV commentator initially suggested the referee had made a mistake, he later apologised publicly and congratulations to him.'
The goal caused confusion among both the Italian and Dutch players too, a number of whom looked astonished when the goal was awarded.
It also provoked some angry reaction among the Italian fans when it was replayed on the giant screens inside the Stade de Suisse stadium and led to Luca Toni being booked for dissent for protesting.
Taylor said his yellow card would stand and that goals would still be replayed on the screens throughout the tournament.
The International Football Association Board, the guardian of the game's laws, had the prerogative to examine the law if they thought the wording needed to be clarified or a loophole existed, Taylor said.
Type in Channel 4 and Italia in google and you?ll get Italy coverage by an English website. As for Italy, they need De Rossi and Cassano in the starting lineup stat.
Thx, flappy.
I think those 2 guys will be starting on Saturday.
Is Panucci being called a goat in Italy? He basically laid on the ground; I don't think he was hurt.
I think those 2 guys will be starting on Saturday.
Is Panucci being called a goat in Italy? He basically laid on the ground; I don't think he was hurt.
