Ref right to award Ruud goal, says UEFA

[Lazie]

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 the laws of the game when Ruud van Nistelrooy scored, stating Christian Panucci played him onside although the Italian 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.

[Karl]

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 the laws of the game when Ruud van Nistelrooy scored, stating Christian Panucci played him onside although the Italian 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.

Oh yes we know the rule...but the doubt came in because the player did not try to leave as a ruse. He was knocked 'down and out'...granted it was by his own defender (Incidentally that TEAMmate defender was the goalkeeper - Not important...matters not...if was a TEAMmate or opponent) ...and granted if he received no treatment but was merely winded and thus able to return...then no offside...but what if he was injuried...when would he not be considered 'on the field' but off hurt? (NB: ...if seriously injuried and so determined by the ref - game must be stopped immediately and attention to player requested by ref).

Is it a time consideration - in other words must the ref 'sit' and carefully assess the situation as - not merely a player stepping off...refusing to get back on...delaying return to 'trick the ref'? ...or it does not matter how or underwhat the circumstances the player left the field?

If it does not matter...then would the goal still stand if the player remained on the ground and his team attacked...shot went to the Dutch goalkeeper...returned by that Dutch goalkeeper to the goalkeeper's teammate...Yup! ...with the player still on the ground...and Rudd scored under similar play situation?

Still not off-side?

mmmmmmm???
I guess this FIFA explanation says - Not offside! Goal stands!
Right?

[PeeJay]

WOW Karl if that was an Essay it would be considered

Fragmented, Too many words saying the same thing and drawn out.....

[Bricktop]

Was the player on the field? If so no offside I don't care if the guy was dead.

[Karl]

Was the player on the field? If so no offside I don't care if the guy was dead.

If the guy was dead - The ref would have to stop play immediately he became aware of that. (Perhaps as the guy was on his way to the ground? - No discretion! Stop play immediately!) Serious injury - same thing!

...however, it is the ref only how will decide...that when the ref becomes aware is the key! (Many refs use - "It never appeared to me to be a serious injury up until that split second before I stopped play. Immediately I realised the seriousness of the injury I stopped play, furiously and urgently signalled for assistance! )

[Mosiah]

Geez, Karl. It is quite simple. A player cannot be officially off the field without the ref's permission. So, even though he was off (knocked off or whatever) he was technically on the field on the goal line!

No offside! GOAL!

[Peter R]

I agree the goal is good, cause if the defender was so close to the goal line ( to be inadvertently knocked over it), it wasn't as if the forwards were cheating a foot or two...I'm sure if reviewed the time from being despatched to the goal being scored is only a few seconds.

pr

[Mosiah]

Can you imagine, whenever a player is about to score, the defender can just walk off, or roll off, writhing in pain, and create an offside situation for the attacker?!

[Karl]

Geez, Karl. It is quite simple. A player cannot be officially off the field without the ref's permission. So, even though he was off (knocked off or whatever) he was technically on the field on the goal line!

No offside! GOAL!

Have you been following the thread?
I think not...or you would not be repeating what I wrote on - A player cannot deliberately step off the field as a ruse...aimed at putting his opponent in an offside position.

...and what is this

A player cannot be officially off the field without the ref's permission?

Just imagine the often seen - done 'crawling across the touch line of injured players'? Not officially off the field?

...and when does the ref make that determination that it is A-OK and act thereon? Sure as a practical matter only a mad ref would punish a player who on being injured 'crawls' off the field. ...but in such circumstances was permission given to leave the field...or a sensible position taken subsequent to that 'crawling off'?

...but forget the above red-herring!

Aside:
...btw - You do know that leaving the field without the referee's permission is a cautionable offense!

-----------------

I am wondering on the decision FIFA gave...because that decision must not only hold for this particular sitaution...but all situations whereon a player is knocked off the field and ends up on the ground for some time.

pR says if we look at the time involved - it was merely a short period. I agree the time was short...so the next question is what if the time was long...6, 8, 10, 12 passes without a break in play (stoppage in play) instead of the 3 passes that occurred?

Offside?

This FIFA ruling says - NO!!!

I am thinking it must hold good all the time or you are going to have some very inconsistent rulings?
Right?

[Mosiah]

The difference is, Karl, I summarised your encyclopedia into a short understandable paragraph. Do you think Forumites read all that stuff, Karl?!? Even this post that I am responding to, after the first paragraph ME GONE!

[No Mercy]

Taylor just trying to use the rule to fit this situation bec

ause him afraid the mafia come after him..lol

Put joke aside ...this rule he mentioned doesnot apply here..

It was a clear offside ...Not only Rudd was offside but his other dutch teamate was offside.


Goalkeepers doesnot determined an opposing player being offside.


The italian defender was clearly out on his backside far from the goalline.

if he was on his feet or even closer to the goal line then I might err on the ref call.

It is was a clear offside and if that is the rule it need to be change..

What if it was a dutch player knock out by his own player or Buffon in that same place (off the field ) ...Would it be a offside or not?

[Mosiah]

Assimilate this: A player cannot be officially off the field without the ref's permission. So, even though he was off (knocked off or whatever) he was technically on the field, on the goal line!

That's all you need to know. What does it matter if he was on his feet or on his ears?!? Think about the possibilities if all a defender has to do is roll off the field to put an attacker in an offside position.

This one is a no-brainer. Next topic!

[No Mercy]

So if he was an attacking player..Would be consider being on

the goal line .

If there was italian defender in front of ruud and him still score would this player be in a offside position (on him backside way from the goal).

[Mosiah]

Good question! The difference between the attacker and the defender is whether or not there is involvement. An attacker has to be involved to be offside, but a defender does not have to be involved to nullify an offside. Big difference!

[No Mercy]

I would think striker or defender would have to involved for

a offside to be in effect.