Does anyone understand offside any more?

[western skies]

OK, I'll confess this is news to me, but it seems that RVN's goal against Italy last night was correctly given onside.

From the BBC:

Dutch striker Ruud van Nistelrooy's opening goal in the win over Italy was legitimate, says Premier League referees' chief Keith Hackett.
Van Nistelrooy looked yards offside when he prodded home from close range.
But it appears he was played onside by defender Christian Panucci, who was lying off the pitch at the time.
"The fact is the assistant was correct; the defender who slid off the field is still regarded as active," Hackett told BBC Sport.
"Christian Panucci went off through contact with his own goalkeeper (Gianluigi) Buffon. He is still considered part of the game." Uefa general secretary David Taylor said the officials had made the right decision.

He told a news conference: "There is a lack of understanding as to why this particular goal was awarded. In fact some television commentators have insisted the goal was clearly offside, but that is not the case.
"The player was not offside because in addition to the goalkeeper there was another Italian player in front of the goalscorer. Even though he had fallen off the pitch his position was still relevant for the purposes of the offside law."
Van Nistelrooy stuck out a leg to poke home a Giovanni van Bronckhorst shot, after Italy had initially cleared the ball.
Italy's players were furious with the decision and even the Dutch delayed their celebrations until they were sure the goal had been given. Italy striker Luca Toni, who was booked for protesting, said: "I looked at the replay during the match and it looked to me as if it was offside.
"I said to the referee, 'look at the replay'. But he didn't look so that was that."

After the game, Dutch forward Dirk Kuyt admitted he was waiting for the goal to be chalked off for offside. But Hackett's comments back up the chairman of Austria's refereeing commission Gerhard Kapl, who said the decision was "100% correct".

So, where does this end exactly? A player lying prone off the pitch and receiving treatment is considered active, whereas a player running back from an offisde position, blocking the view of the goalkeeper, but not touching the ball isn't.

Don Howe must be ripping out what's left of his hair.

[Appy Ammer]

I have just given up with it...

A guy at work has just said to me under rule 11.4.1 - the linesman was right to give the goal...

To me RVN is offside.

[JackJarvis]

Given up myself.

He was a mile offside, end of.

[Matt]

Exactly, offside.

May as well send your strikers to wrestle defenders off the pitch at corners if this is the rule.

[staffy]

the goal stood so he must have been onside what ever the rights or wrongs.

[WorkingForTheEnemy]

Since when has a player off the pitch counted as being part of play?

[kevshat]

Since that lino made a cock up last night and needed an escape route

[WorkingForTheEnemy]

I have just given up with it...

A guy at work has just said to me under rule 11.4.1 - the linesman was right to give the goal...

Reffering to this post and my previous comment, found this on wiki although it is awaiting confirmation.

Additionally Article 11.4.1 of the referring code states "an opposing player cannot be offside when one of the last two defenders has left the field of play"(citation needed)

Changed in 2005 apparently.

[WorkingForTheEnemy]

Talking about it on BBC now. As they say, rule was officially brought in to stop players stepping off the pitch to make someone offside but was madness in this case as Pannuci was clearly taken out of play and wasn't getting involved anytime soon.

[Matt]

Only in football could a attacker standing next to the goalscorer be ruled as "not interfering with play" while a defender lying down injured 3 yards off the back of the pitch be confirmed as "active"

utter fcuking joke.

[kevshat]

How can a player be treated by the physio off the pitch behind the goal if he's still active in play

[aliando]

where's peteg to clarify?

[peteg40]

Originally Posted by aliando

where's peteg to clarify?

I'm Hiding over here mate

Yeah sorry chaps it was the right decision

I agree with most comments that its a joke, but that's the LAW right or wrong.......

But i don't think the player involved was being attended by the physio till after the goal was scored

[kevshat]

Originally Posted by peteg40

But i don't think the player involved was being attended by the physio till after the goal was scored

He wasn't, but I've seen so many times the ref tell a player to leave the field if he wants treatment. So the player and the physio trots off behind the goal for treatment, so he's playing everyone onside is he .

[Dodger]

Of course he wasn't receiving attention at the time...he had tumbled off the pitch only just before the goal was put away.
It was a goal and no amount of moaning and groaning is going to change that.

[peteg40]

Originally Posted by kevshat

He wasn't, but I've seen so many times the ref tell a player to leave the field if he wants treatment. So the player and the physio trots off behind the goal for treatment, so he's playing everyone onside is he .

No the physio is treating the player The ref as stoped play ...got the physio on the pitch to see how bad the injury if asked to leave field of play the they both leave Referee restarts the game with whatever method....... so the player not part of the game

[western skies]

Originally Posted by WorkingForTheEnemy

Talking about it on BBC now. As they say, rule was officially brought in to stop players stepping off the pitch to make someone offside.

See, that's interesting.

To my mind, the people to be blamed for the fiasco that the rules of football have become are the coaches and the players. Some smarty-pants coach has obviously told his defenders to step off the pitch to try to catch players offside, and so the rule has been changed to try to combat that obvious form of gamesmanship. Of course, now the rule is being misapplied because it was badly written, which is the problem with law-makers in every walk of life.

It's the same with diving. We wouldn't have the prioblem with refs inconsitently applying the laws if players didn't try to cheat in the first place, and coaches didn't condone it.

For the first time in my life, I've actually begun to feel sorry for the refs.

But that was still a shocking decision last night.

[aliando]

cheers pete!


i see it differently WS - you cannot blame coaches/players for manipulating the rules if they are vague and open to abuse. Similarly with drogba, whilst I cannot stand him, it is ultimately the rules which allow him to do that

[A-Team]

If that was the rule they were interpreting then it wold've been an automatic booking for Panucci for ungentlemanly conduct. That's the whole point of the rule, to prevent players from tactically stepping off the pitch.

As Panucci wasn't booked I can only assume that they made a balls of the original decision and are using the player off the pitch thing to hide it.

[SloppyJ]

If the player is off the field without being allowed by the ref, then he's still active.

Imagine a striker could just stand behind the goal, wait for his defender to lump it down the pitch, then go and run after it and wouldnt be offside.