eurobabeforum.com

STEMCELL wrote:the first goal was 100% correct. Strange that the Italian coach does not know the rules of the game Rolling Eyes

paroxysmia wrote:But this Italian was pushed past the goal line in a previous play action by Buffon so it's was not voluntarily and Panucci is no more in the game.

So Van Nistelrooy is offside.

STEMCELL wrote:Doesn´t matter that Panucci was pushed by his goalie or by whomever.
The rule is clear: He was still in the game.
That was discussed lengthy in German TV and two former German FIFA referee´s confirmed that the goal was 100% regular.

paroxysmia wrote:

STEMCELL wrote:Doesn´t matter that Panucci was pushed by his goalie or by whomever.
The rule is clear: He was still in the game.
That was discussed lengthy in German TV and two former German FIFA referee´s confirmed that the goal was 100% regular.

Look at the goal:
http://www.dailymotion.com/commented-today/video/x5q1kc_nistelrooy-but-vs-italie_sport

Pannuci is CLEARLY pushed by Buffon outside the football pitch.
And the rule precises there is NO offside if a defender goes voluntarily past the goal line to put offside the attacker and so the defender in this case stays in game.

But in this match, Panucci is pushed by Buffon, stays down and seems to be injuried (leg). So it's unvoluntary and Panucci is out the game.

UEFA has emphasised that the goal scored by Netherlands striker Ruud van Nistelrooy in last night's UEFA EURO 2008™ match against Italy in Berne was valid, and that referee Peter Fröjdfeldt acted correctly in awarding it.

Not offside
UEFA General Secretary David Taylor was reacting to claims from some quarters that Van Nistelrooy was standing in an offside position when he scored the first of the Netherlands' goals in their 3-0 win. "I would like to take the opportunity to explain and emphasise that the goal was correctly awarded by the referee team," he said. "I think there's a lack of understanding among the general football public, and I think it's understandable because this was an unusual situation. The player was not offside, because, in addition to the Italian goalkeeper, there was another Italian player in front of the goalscorer. Even though that other Italian player at the time had actually fallen off the pitch, his position was still relevant for the purposes of the offside law."

Still involved
The starting point, said Mr Taylor, is the Laws of the Game – Law 11 – which deal with offside, whereby a player is in an offside position if he is nearer to his opponents' goalline than both the ball and the second-last opponent. "There need to be two defenders involved," the UEFA General Secretary said. "If you think back to the situation, the first is the goalkeeper, and the second is the defender who, because of his momentum, actually had left the field of play. But this defender was still deemed to be part of the game. Therefore he is taken into consideration as one of the last two opponents. As a result, Ruud van Nistelrooy was not nearer to the opponents' goal than the second-last defender and, therefore, could not be in an offside position.

Rare incident
"This is a widely-known interpretation of the offside law among referees that is not generally known by the wider football public," he continued. "Incidents like this are very unusual – although I'm informed that there was an incident like this about a month ago in a Swiss Super League match between FC Sion and FC Basel 1893. [It was] initially suggested that this [goal] was a mistake by the referee in terms of the offside law – the commentator later apologised publicly, as he didn't realise that this was the correct application of the law."

Law applied
Mr Taylor concluded: "So let's be clear – the referees' team applied the law in the correct manner. If we did not have this interpretation of the player being off the pitch then what could happen is that the defending team could use the tactic of stepping off the pitch deliberately to play players offside, and that clearly is unacceptable. The most simple and practical interpretation of the law in this instance is the one that is adopted by referees throughout the world – that is that unless you have permission from the referee to be off the pitch, you are deemed to be on it and deemed to be part of the game. That is why the Italian defender, even though his momentum had taken him off the pitch, was still deemed to be part of the game, and therefore the attacking player put the ball into the net, and it was a valid goal. The law in this place was applied absolutely correctly."

paroxysmia wrote:But in this match, Panucci is pushed by Buffon, stays down and seems to be injuried (leg). So it's unvoluntary and Panucci is out the game.

Law applied
Mr Taylor concluded: "So let's be clear – the referees' team applied the law in the correct manner. If we did not have this interpretation of the player being off the pitch then what could happen is that the defending team could use the tactic of stepping off the pitch deliberately to play players offside, and that clearly is unacceptable. The most simple and practical interpretation of the law in this instance is the one that is adopted by referees throughout the world – that is that unless you have permission from the referee to be off the pitch, you are deemed to be on it and deemed to be part of the game. That is why the Italian defender, even though his momentum had taken him off the pitch, was still deemed to be part of the game, and therefore the attacking player put the ball into the net, and it was a valid goal. The law in this place was applied absolutely correctly."

camaban wrote:And regardless of this, the Netherlands were so much better in the first half that this vicorty is very, very deserved.