That goal Ruud scored against Italy

Originally Posted by Charlestown Rouge

nft £#%&!features

It's a love hate thing.

Originally Posted by Charlestown Rouge

Far be it from me to defend nft £#%&!features but you said defenders would step off the pitch to play attackers onside.

Which is wrong.

it was the 'many defenders'

it sounded like um big heap red indian speak

Originally Posted by Charlestown Rouge

Far be it from me to defend nft £#%&!features but you said defenders would step off the pitch to play attackers onside.

Which is wrong.

Originally Posted by Billy Baroo

it was the 'many defenders'

it sounded like um big heap red indian speak

it was both. i'm glad you @#%&!s can back me up on something.

nft.

Originally Posted by Billy Baroo

it was the 'many defenders'

it sounded like um big heap red indian speak

I've a GCSE in "big heap red indian speak".

goal for me as well. But it comes down to a simple question - in that period of play if the Italian had got straight up would he have had to wait for the referee to give him permission to re-enter the field of play. If yes then he is inactive and the goal should not have stood. If no then he is active and the goal should have stood. Correct decision for me.

The rule states that the goal is onside if the player deliberately leaves the field of play. This was not the case with the holland goal

Originally Posted by fcred

The rule states that the goal is onside if the player deliberately leaves the field of play. This was not the case with the holland goal

It is a tough call though

It is his team mate and captain that pushed him off the pitch, so surely they have to take responsibility.

Originally Posted by fcred

The rule states that the goal is onside if the player deliberately leaves the field of play. This was not the case with the holland goal

And that particular law goes on to say the player should be booked for leaving the field of play. But it doesn't say if a player accidentally leaves the pitch, he is not active. UEFA and FIFA have been clear on this - good goal.

It's funny how when something like this happens - approximately once every decade - people think the rule should be changed, without imagining the consequences without that rule, i.e. defenders stepping off - or pretending to fall or be pushed across - the line to put attackers in an offside position. Especially imagine this at free kicks, played in from an angle, where just before the kick, the defenders run across their own goal line, and the attackers would have to turn and run the opposite direction! Would be slapstick I tell you.

Originally Posted by Grimson

And that particular law goes on to say the player should be booked for leaving the field of play. But it doesn't say if a player accidentally leaves the pitch, he is not active. UEFA and FIFA have been clear on this - good goal.

It's funny how when something like this happens - approximately once every decade - people think the rule should be changed, without imagining the consequences without that rule, i.e. defenders stepping off - or pretending to fall or be pushed across - the line to put attackers in an offside position. Especially imagine this at free kicks, played in from an angle, where just before the kick, the defenders run across their own goal line, and the attackers would have to turn and run the opposite direction! Would be slapstick I tell you.

so a player who is 5 yrds off the field, out for the count with no intention of moving (even his index finger!) is deemed to be playing a goal hanger on side? where's the common sense. i hate Panucci as much as the next man, but £#%&! me the worlds gone mad if you let that goal count.

whatever happened to common sense????

nft.

Originally Posted by El Calafate

so a player who is 5 yrds off the field, out for the count with no intention of moving (even his index finger!) is deemed to be playing a goal hanger on side? where's the common sense. i hate Panucci as much as the next man, but £#%&! me the worlds gone mad if you let that goal count.

whatever happened to common sense????

nft.

So it's common sense to punish Holland because the Italian keeper slung one of his own defenders across the line? If he had just fallen where he collided with Buffon, Ruud is onside.

btw you can see Panucci have a peek to see what's going on, and when he sees the ball go in, he tries to pretend to be injured.

Originally Posted by Grimson

So it's common sense to punish Holland because the Italian keeper slung one of his own defenders across the line? If he had just fallen where he collided with Buffon, Ruud is onside.

btw you can see Panucci have a peek to see what's going on, and when he sees the ball go in, he tries to pretend to be injured.

i'm sorry, i'm not having it. even Ruud thought he was off. he couldn't believe it was allowed.

nft.

Originally Posted by El Calafate

i'm sorry, i'm not having it.

nft.

Italy will be delighted to hear it. When's the rematch?

Originally Posted by Grimson

Italy will be delighted to hear it. When's the rematch?

the final?

nft.

Originally Posted by El Calafate

even Ruud thought he was off. he couldn't believe it was allowed.

nft.

What do you mean, EVEN Ruud? Players don't know any beyond the basic laws. He likely didn't even see Panucci. Buffon did, that's why he didn't argue.

Grimson - thanks for having gone to the trouble of explaining this, I mean that. Good on you.

El C - as The Rock wisely said.....

IT DOESN'T MATTER what you think. It was a goal.

Originally Posted by Grimson

What do you mean, EVEN Ruud? Players don't know any beyond the basic laws. He likely didn't even see Panucci. Buffon did, that's why he didn't argue.

stop making excuses. the goal was unfair.

it's like me kicking you in the %@#$&!s and then running away celebrating.

nft.

Originally Posted by El Calafate

stop making excuses. the goal was unfair.

it's like me kicking you in the %@#$&!s and then celebrating.

nft.

Perfectly good goal. The entire game of football would be in slapstick chaos without that law.

Originally Posted by Grimson

Perfectly good goal. The entire game of football would be in slapstick chaos without that law.

nonsense. If referees are allowed to judge if someone is interfering with play when they're attacking they can do it for a defender lying prone off the field.

Originally Posted by dodger

nonsense. If referees are allowed to judge if someone is interfering with play when they're attacking they can do it for a defender lying prone off the field.

Indeed they can. And a defender leaving the pitch and putting someone offside would indeed be interfering with play. Hence the correct interpretation of the law.

Common sense would say it was offside.

The rules technically say he was onside, apparently.

Who gives a shit anyway, I can't understand why anyone outside Italy doesn't want them to get beat.