First Dutch goal - NOT OFFSIDE!!!

[Sharples]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/euro_2008/7445476.stm

Jesus wept...

As if the ref's didn't make big enough fools of themselves, their boss comes out and defends the indefendable!!!

Who was aware of this 'rule'???!

 

[Space Wolf]

I think they got the right decision. Unfortunately I don't think it was down to brilliant officiating. It would be nice to think the referee and his assistant knew the offside rule that well but I doubt it. It's more a case of they've dug out the rule after the event rather than knowingly giving the goal at the time.

 

[Sharples]

I have just noticed this mentioned on another thread but obviously no quotes from bbc website so I'll stand by this one

 

[Sharples]

I think they got the right decision. Unfortunately I don't think it was down to brilliant officiating. It would be nice to think the referee and his assistant knew the offside rule that well but I doubt it. It's more a case of they've dug out the rule after the event rather than knowingly giving the goal at the time.

Spot on, its a ridiculous rule and its come in handy on this occassion. I wonder how many goals have been disallowed while there has been a player off the pitch...

 

[glasgowwolf]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/euro_2008/7445476.stm

Jesus wept...

As if the ref's didn't make big enough fools of themselves, their boss comes out and defends the indefendable!!!

Who was aware of this 'rule'???!

Any one who has done the ref's course.

Most fans don't know the full rules.

It is so funny watching the TV, listening to the commentators, and pundits, spouting crap about rules when they do not know them.

If you had read the Thread from last night you would have seen several posters state the same as Hackett.

If a player leaves the pitch, without permission of the ref, he is deemed to be still on the pitch, If not what is to stop any player just walking of the pitch to make an opposing player off side.

I can just see a free kick outside the box. All defenders stand on the goals line and take a yard step back, et Voila, all opposing players are off side.

 

[Mr Zuki]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/euro_2008/7445476.stm

Jesus wept...

As if the ref's didn't make big enough fools of themselves, their boss comes out and defends the indefendable!!!

Who was aware of this 'rule'???!

Well I wasn't aware of it but it makes sense to me. Without it defenders could just "unintentionally" make players offside by leaving the field any time they felt like it.

 

[Black Suit]

Any one who has done the ref's course.

Most fans don't know the full rules.

It is so funny watching the TV, listening to the commentators, and pundits, spouting crap about rules when they do not know them.

If you had read the Thread from last night you would have seen several posters state the same as Hackett.

If a player leaves the pitch, without permission of the ref, he is deemed to be still on the pitch, If not what is to stop any player just walking of the pitch to make an opposing player off side.

I can just see a free kick outside the box. All defenders stand on the goals line and take a yard step back, et Voila, all opposing players are off side.

Bang on fella. Was the player injured though or did he deliberately walk off the pitch?

 

[Sharples]

I can just see a free kick outside the box. All defenders stand on the goals line and take a yard step back, et Voila, all opposing players are off side.

Thats a different kettle of fish. The Italian defender was off the pitch when the ball was cleared, phase one if you like, and he was down on the floor when the ball came back into the box. He didn't delibrately do it!!

Plus could the linesman see him other side of the goal?

Its clear players dont know the rules, I remember our mate Jens at Arsenal trying to roll Eboué off the pitch his end so he wouldn't play anyone onside, by what your saying and that **** of a chief ref, that wouldn't make any difference...

 

[WestChiltingtonwolf]

Its goal. What would happen if you allow people to go off the pitch without the refs permission?

Imagine a corner being defended by players all stepping off the pitch behing the goal just before the ball was kicked?

**took too long to type so glasgow got there 1st**

 

[kennyB]

Bang on fella. Was the player injured though or did he deliberately walk off the pitch?

Immaterial, he didn't have the refs permission to leave the pitch and as mentioned he was technically in play. The linesman was spot on and would have known the law.

 

[Big Mack]

Bang on fella. Was the player injured though or did he deliberately walk off the pitch?

He got clattered by his own keeper when punching the ball out and sent sprawling to the side of the goal and over the goal line. The resulting shot and 'deflection' from Van N happened so quickly he didn't have time to get back to his feet.

Don't think he was 'injured' but neither did he have time to run back to the six yard line to play VN offside.

Stupid rule.

 

[Space Wolf]

When Wolves played Newcastle at St James Park in 2004. Vio Ganea scored and Carl Cort was standing in the goal at the time. He was behind the line so according to the rule he would have been active and in an offside position. As we know, the goal stood.

Mistakes happen but I as I said. I think it's just a case of them covering themselves after the event.

 

[glasgowwolf]

Thats a different kettle of fish. The Italian defender was off the pitch when the ball was cleared, phase one if you like, and he was down on the floor when the ball came back into the box. He didn't delibrately do it!!

Plus could the linesman see him other side of the goal?

Its clear players dont know the rules, I remember our mate Jens at Arsenal trying to roll Eboué off the pitch his end so he wouldn't play anyone onside, by what your saying and that **** of a chief ref, that wouldn't make any difference...

A player that is injured remains part of the play until the ref has stopped the game. A player that leaves the pitch Injured or not without the permission of the ref shall be deemed to still be part of the action. A yellow card should be awarded to any player leaving or returning to the pitch without the permission of the ref.

I'll ask you another thing what is to stop a player feigning injury, rolling off the pitch to play someone offside.

Phase 1, 2, or phase 45, if a player has is part of the game, he is playing someone on-side, until the game has been stopped, or the ref has signalled for treatment to commence.

As for could he see, all the linesman would have seen is a blue jersey (italian) collide with the keeper and roll over the goal line. He would not know if he was injured or not.

He would however know that there was an active player + the one other defender between the goal line and Van Nistelroy, at the time the ball was played to Van Nistelroy, thus meeting the legal requirements for off side.

 

[Kenny-11]

Spot on, its a ridiculous rule

it stops people running off the pitch to put someone in an offside position. So its a good rule.

 

[glasgowwolf]

He got clattered by his own keeper when punching the ball out and sent sprawling to the side of the goal and over the goal line. The resulting shot and 'deflection' from Van N happened so quickly he didn't have time to get back to his feet.

Don't think he was 'injured' but neither did he have time to run back to the six yard line to play VN offside.

Stupid rule.

So now if a player does not have enough time to run 10 yards and play someone off-side the flag should be raised for off side.

Great so now every goal shall be offside, because the attackers did not give the defending team time to spring the offside trap

 

[glasgowwolf]

When Wolves played Newcastle at St James Park in 2004. Vio Ganea scored and Carl Cort was standing in the goal at the time. He was behind the line so according to the rule he would have been active and in an offside position. As we know, the goal stood.

Mistakes happen but I as I said. I think it's just a case of them covering themselves after the event.

No mistake, Cort was not interfering with play, therfore the goal correctly counted.
For a defender to be playing someone offside he does not need to be interfering with play, he just has to be there

 

[UNCLE REMUS]

Wish someone would re-explain law 11 to me.

 

[nimrod]

Regardless of what the rulebook says my instinct was the goal should have been disallowed. Obviously the offside rule has been changed over time to encourage attacking play but it could do with another look at. Sometimes the law is an ass.

I recall in my demon winger days after reaching the bye line and crossing for someone to score I'd always try to step over the line to avoid being offside before the finishing touch was applied. I think I'm right in thinking that isn't necessary anymore on the basis that even though it may have been my cross that's being scored from, I'm no longer interfering with play. What a load of crap!

 

[Mr Zuki]

Regardless of what the rulebook says my instinct was the goal should have been disallowed. Obviously the offside rule has been changed over time to encourage attacking play but it could do with another look at. Sometimes the law is an ass.

I recall in my demon winger days after reaching the bye line and crossing for someone to score I'd always try to step over the line to avoid being offside before the finishing touch was applied. I think I'm right in thinking that isn't necessary anymore on the basis that even though it may have been my cross that's being scored from, I'm no longer interfering with play. What a load of crap!

If you have just crossed the ball from out on the wing you can no longer influence play so you are not interfering, makes perfect sense to me.

 

[IrchyWolf]

It's easy to revert. Simply get rid of the subjective judgment with regard to 'interfering with play'. Retain the 'level is onside' clause.

Having said that, none of the above will have helped in this case. They are right to state that the goal is onside but it still sticks in my craw as it's so clearly against the spirit of the law, even if it's within its letter.

 

[ProudWolf]

If the incident had happened two yards further upfield and Panucci has lying on the goal-line rather than off the pitch then the goal would've stood. What's the difference?

 

[glasgowwolf]

Regardless of what the rulebook says my instinct was the goal should have been disallowed. Obviously the offside rule has been changed over time to encourage attacking play but it could do with another look at. Sometimes the law is an ass.

I recall in my demon winger days after reaching the bye line and crossing for someone to score I'd always try to step over the line to avoid being offside before the finishing touch was applied. I think I'm right in thinking that isn't necessary anymore on the basis that even though it may have been my cross that's being scored from, I'm no longer interfering with play. What a load of crap!

Your not quite with it regarding offside.

In the instance above you would never ever have been flagged off-side.

After crossing you would never have been interfering with play, as it used to state.


Off-side has always had an element of interfering with play, George Berry V Derby when we won 5-1, half our forwards were off side but Berry went through on his own goal stood.


The offside rule has changed recently, supposedly to clear up this interfering with play, however it has just confused every one.

Ever since day 1, a player off the pitch was active, unless he was receiving treatment at with the ref's agreement.


Offside is the most un-understood rule in football.

I laugh when I hear guys say to women tell me the offside rule, reality is they do not know it themselves.

Offside is only known and understood by qualified ref's.
It's got worse recently with FIFA changing the bloody rule every year.

I no longer get the rules come through, but each year ref's get amendments to the rules, and each year the off-side rule is changed.

I remember arguing with a central defender when I was reffing, he said Player A was standing offside he had left him to stand there.

I told him he ought to check, before doing that as you cannot be offside from a goal kick, he had played the game for 20 odd years.


Players, managers, pundits, commentators and fans no longer understand the rules, this leads to so much confusion.

A player is not just an active part of the game if he steps off the pitch for Offside but for every other part of the game, and rightly so.

 

[Hathwolf]

Wish someone would re-explain law 11 to me.

A player is in an offside position if:

he is nearer to his opponents goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent.

As taken from Laws of Association Football season 2007-2008.

There are actually only 2-3 laws that are described shorter in the Laws than offside.

 

[glasgowwolf]

it still sticks in my craw as it's so clearly against the spirit of the law, even if it's within its letter.

I don't understand why it's against the spirit.

Player A finds himself out of position on the near post, Player B unmarked far post.
Just before ball is played Player A steps out of play.

Player B is flagged offside.

Surely all players involved in the game are active at all times unless they have left the playing area with the agreement of the ref.

My personal opinion, is that the goal was in the spirit of play, and farely legal.

A defender does not have to be interfering with play to play a player on-side, it'll be a terrible day for everyone if this is ever bought in

 

[thekentwolf]

Regardless of what the rulebook says my instinct was the goal should have been disallowed. Obviously the offside rule has been changed over time to encourage attacking play but it could do with another look at. Sometimes the law is an ass.

I recall in my demon winger days after reaching the bye line and crossing for someone to score I'd always try to step over the line to avoid being offside before the finishing touch was applied. I think I'm right in thinking that isn't necessary anymore on the basis that even though it may have been my cross that's being scored from, I'm no longer interfering with play. What a load of crap!

Becareful, you might get booked for leaving the field of player without the referee's permission!

 

[glasgowwolf]

A player is in an offside position if:

he is nearer to his opponents goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent.

As taken from Laws of Association Football season 2007-2008.

There are actually only 2-3 laws that are described shorter in the Laws than offside.

A player shall be offside if there are not 2 opposing players between the attacker and the goal line at the time the ball is played forward.

Forward being the operative word.

It then states, a player cannot be offside,

From a goal kick.
If he is not deemed to be active.
If he is in his own half.


Players not being on the pitch are covered in another rule, I am not sure which one.

However Players shall be deemed to be active at all times unless they have left the field of play with the permission of the ref.

Any player who leaves or enters the field of play without the ref's permission, shall be cautioned and awarded a yellow card.

This obviously does not mean players who slide off, who accidently leave the field of play.
It is aimed at those who deliberately leave the field of play.


Due to entering leaving the field rule players that slide off as yesterday are deemed to be active.


Therfore the goal stood.

 

[glasgowwolf]

Becareful, you might get booked for leaving the field of player without the referee's permission!

Your quite right, because he left the field of play to gain an advantage, he should have been booked.

 

[Hereford Wolf]

Can't quite see why this is difficult for some people,
He left the pitch without permission & therefore the goal was not offside.

How hard is that?

 

[Boss Hogg]

Perhaps we should just scrap offside altogether? It would make things more interesting and there would probably be more goals.

 

[nimrod]

Your not quite with it regarding offside.

In the instance above you would never ever have been flagged off-side.

After crossing you would never have been interfering with play, as it used to state.

Off-side has always had an element of interfering with play, George Berry V Derby when we won 5-1, half our forwards were off side but Berry went through on his own goal stood.

The offside rule has changed recently, supposedly to clear up this interfering with play, however it has just confused every one.

Unfortunately I did used to get flagged for offside in those instances, no doubt by unscrupulous linesmen, which is why I used to step over the bye-line in the clearly mistaken belief it would exempt me from being offside.

I think where the law is an ass is that in the instance I described I could run across the byeline approach the keeper on his post and slip a short pass for a forward to score. Personally I think I could hardly interfere with play more than that. Meanwhile, in yesterday's match the defender could have been out sparko 5 yards behind the goal yet is taken into account. Not a fair rule in my view.

Cheers for explaining Glas. I think the reality is you can find instances where the existing rules as well as proposed changes could lead to unfair situations and perhaps under the existing rules there's a few of us who think Horseys goal yesterday was one of them. I'd have to agree it doesn't mean a change would be any better.

 

[Hathwolf]

A player shall be offside if there are not 2 opposing players between the attacker and the goal line at the time the ball is played forward.

Forward being the operative word.

It then states, a player cannot be offside,

From a goal kick.
If he is not deemed to be active.
If he is in his own half.


Players not being on the pitch are covered in another rule, I am not sure which one.

However Players shall be deemed to be active at all times unless they have left the field of play with the permission of the ref.

Any player who leaves or enters the field of play without the ref's permission, shall be cautioned and awarded a yellow card.

This obviously does not mean players who slide off, who accidently leave the field of play.
It is aimed at those who deliberately leave the field of play.


Due to entering leaving the field rule players that slide off as yesterday are deemed to be active.


Therfore the goal stood.

Unfortunately, Law 11 has nowhere that states the ball must be played forward, even though we all know that!

 

[bod101]

http://www.thefa.com/NR/rdonlyres/0...-C1253A1C28FD/122272/FIFALaws2007_08_book.pdf

 

[WolvesAreBoringOnCeefax]

Despite what people say, the 'interfering with play' clause is, in theory, a good idea. If someone hammers one in from 45 yards, only to have it ruled out because a winger was 1 yard past the last defender on the other side of the pitch, that's wrong. It's just been over complicated now with all this 'second phase' malarky. I doubt the ref yesterday knew the off the pitch rule, it's just luckily let them off missing the offside.

 

[Ginger Chimp]

I think it's just a case of them covering themselves after the event.

Ehh? They are not covering themselves after the event. They are explaining the rules, as they already exist, to some members of the press (and some fans) to demonstrate that the goal was legitimate.

Whether you (and others) think it's a daft rule or not, the fact is that the goal was a good one.

 

[Ginger Chimp]

I doubt the ref yesterday knew the off the pitch rule, it's just luckily let them off missing the offside.

I bet he did know. You don't get to the top of any profession without knowing something about it. I'd be surprised if top referees weren't regularly checked and tested on some of the more "prone-to-controversy" rules.

It would appear that there are people on this forum who may well have had knowledge of this rule (and it's interpretation).

Why is it so unlikely that a top class, international referee wouldn't know it? Just because you didn't know it?

 

[WolvesAreBoringOnCeefax]

Actually you're right Ginger Chimp, thinking about it they probably would know it. I suppose what I was thinking was they missed the offside (i.e. thought Ruud was level); they didn't give it for the player off the pitch.

 

[The Vicar]

Perhaps we should just scrap offside altogether? It would make things more interesting and there would probably be more goals.

I think you will find a certain Marco Van Basten suggested exactly that when he made suggestion sto UEFA several years ago about how to imrpvoe the game. I seem to recall another being that the game should run until the ball had been in active play for 30 minutes each half. Both very sensible ideas to me.

It never ceases to amaze me how many ex-players and pundits don't know the rules of the game.

 

[Sharples]

A player that is injured remains part of the play until the ref has stopped the game. A player that leaves the pitch Injured or not without the permission of the ref shall be deemed to still be part of the action. A yellow card should be awarded to any player leaving or returning to the pitch without the permission of the ref.

I'll ask you another thing what is to stop a player feigning injury, rolling off the pitch to play someone offside.

Phase 1, 2, or phase 45, if a player has is part of the game, he is playing someone on-side, until the game has been stopped, or the ref has signalled for treatment to commence.

As for could he see, all the linesman would have seen is a blue jersey (italian) collide with the keeper and roll over the goal line. He would not know if he was injured or not.

He would however know that there was an active player + the one other defender between the goal line and Van Nistelroy, at the time the ball was played to Van Nistelroy, thus meeting the legal requirements for off side.

Your a ref at an ameteur level aren't ya?!

I can tell by the anal way you've written that, bloody refs...!!!

 

[nimrod]

http://www.thefa.com/NR/rdonlyres/0...-C1253A1C28FD/122272/FIFALaws2007_08_book.pdf

Clear as mud really. I mean on Page 78 it states that:

"if a defending player steps behind his 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..."

which seems to suggest that players not on the field of play would not normally be counted in assessing offside unless they left the field deliberately to create an offside. It seems to me its about interpretation of a dodgy set of rules/laws.

I think the next thing to discuss is when is an "accidental" handball in the box a penalty. That's another one refs can't seem to make their minds up about.

 

[Jonzy54]

Whatever the rights or wrongs of last night's decision it just emphasises that ,overall,the offside law is a mess.You will always get thickos(players and fans) who wouldn't comprehend a simple law,but the current edict of active/non active,first/second phase should be simplified.I'm not saying I have the answers but can you imagine if that was to happen in a critical league game there would be a riot.
I would never condone such action,but the 'Beautiful game' should also be an easy game to understand. Can you imagine a Sunday League Ref giving the same decision?He would get lynched.