TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- UEFA Euro 2008
-- [Group C] Netherlands - Italy
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by noikeee Just watched a replay and the defender hits Buffon while fighting for the ball - falling outside of the pitch. He didn't "leave the field" on purpose to put the player offside. In my understanding of the rules, it's offside. That's the opinion of our commentators too. Although if the rule is like Zayatz posted, it does sound like I'm wrong, I was pretty sure that rule only applied to when a player leaves the field on purpose.

This is my understanding of it as well, however it may very well be wrong.

I'm sure i've seen players end up off the park like what happened tonight and then wait behind the goal until the phase of play is over or the ball is cleared.

quote:

Originally posted by denys envy italy have done nothing to make me feel like they belong in this match.

I totally disagree. The second and third Dutch goals came straight after a goal-line clearance and a fantastic save. The Italians threatened the goal plenty but they had no luck and Holland were simply fantastic on the break.

Checking this offside shit, I found a typo in the fifa guidelines lol.

Page 60:

quote:

An attacker in an offside position (A), not interfering with an opponent, does not touche the ball. The player cannot be penalised because he did not touch the ball.

>Link<

lol what a geek I am

EDIT: Also can't find anything to suggest that the i-tie had left the game at all and weirdly it says

quote:

It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position. 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

The Italian was closer... but on the other side.

It only really mentions substitutions as far as I can see.

quote:

Originally posted by noikeee Just watched a replay and the defender hits Buffon while fighting for the ball - falling outside of the pitch. He didn't "leave the field" on purpose to put the player offside.

That's right, so he can't be penalized for it. However, he was still participating in the game (as he hadn't been dismissed / the game wasn't interrupted for whatever reason by the ref), so no-one inside the lines could ever be offside as long as he was lying behind the goal.

The Dutch reporter initially also thought it was offside until he was informed by a dutch professional referee about the legitimacy of the goal. He just took the ref's word for it and so did we until during half time things were explained further.

I don't see why people are still confused. He was knocked out of bounds by Buffon, that doesn't remove him from play just because he's lying on the floor.

btw... woooooooooooooooooo HUP HOLLAND HUP!

quote:

Originally posted by bas I don't see why people are still confused. He was knocked out of bounds by Buffon, that doesn't remove him from play just because he's lying on the floor.

i think the argument is that he was actually injured and therefore deserved a stoppage of the play. of course one wishes he'd put half as much effort into asking the referee for the stoppage of play when he was injured as he did into arguing the call after the play.

Fact is the ref didnt stop the game, so the goal is legit. It's that simple If the ref stopped the game, there would have been no argument on the offside topic in the first place.

I was under the impression that a player can remove himself from the field of play if injured and the game can continue without him being involved. I've seen it before- a player went down injured outside the pitch and the game continued, but he'd dived and wanted to delay the game, so he "accidentally" rolled in agony back onto the pitch and forced the referee to stop the game for his treatment.

It seems totally unfair that a player who is both injured and outside the field- totally unable to affect the play- can basically play anyone on the pitch onside while he's laid there.

EDIT: Check this article out, on whether Ruud was offside or not: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A37087842

controversial but legit goal. Damn rules are out of date and unfair.

quote:

Originally posted by sensorium Damn rules are out of date and unfair.

Perhaps... but why should it make a difference whether the players falls down inside or outside of the field? Referees don't stop games, especially attacks, because two players of the same team collide. Unless maybe when they're bleeding to death or are knocked unconscious, which clearly wasn't the case.

With that in mind... Why is it unfair to call this goal legit, when there would have been no discussion at all if the player hit the grass on the other side of the line?

FORZA ITALIA

LOL

good game squaddra

legit or not legit goal, it doesn't change the fact that the Oranje tore the Azzuri defense to shreds

fuk ja!

oranje ftw

quote:

Originally posted by eieregooie Perhaps... but why should it make a difference whether the players falls down inside or outside of the field? Referees don't stop games, especially attacks, because two players of the same team collide. Unless maybe when they're bleeding to death or are knocked unconscious, which clearly wasn't the case. With that in mind... Why is it unfair to call this goal legit, when there would have been no discussion at all if the player hit the grass on the other side of the line?

The concern here, at least mine, is that a player took advantage out of a position to score a goal, and that is what makes it unfair. Maybe you misunderstood my comment.

It should make a difference whether the player is in or outside the field, injured or not is second degree. If he's outside the field, then he is out of play and can't be counted as a last man. It's unfair otherwise.

Stopping the game wasn't the issue. It wouldn't have been proper because, as you said, the team was attacking.

FIFA needs to make some adjustments. A player who doesn't go for the ball because he's offside doesn't get a call but when a player is out of the field he is still counted in play? Nonsense.

As I said, FIFA needs to fix this and make refs more rigorous with the time wasting of players and their acting of injuries.

quote:

Originally posted by sensorium As I said, FIFA needs to fix this and make refs more rigorous with the time wasting of players and their acting of injuries.

Never gonna happen.

quote:

Originally posted by sensorium If he's outside the field, then he is out of play and can't be counted as a last man. It's unfair otherwise.

On this I simply disagree. The question whether or not a player "stepped outside" on purpose to cause offside would become arbitrary and hard to determine as well.

quote:

Originally posted by sensorium FIFA needs to make some adjustments. A player who doesn't go for the ball because he's offside doesn't get a call but when a player is out of the field he is still counted in play? Nonsense.

Does make sense to me. A player on the attacking team who's not going for the ball is considered not participating in the game. You could consider applying the same rule for defense but I don't think it would be very useful. It shouldn't have anything to do with being inside or outside the lines though. Players step outside the lines all the time which is ok as long as the ball remains in the field. Those players are still participating in the game aren't they?

A different issue are players leaving the field during an interruption for medical treatment or what not. They are not participating in the game anymore and could be considered officially dismissed. Therefore they're not allowed to return to the game until the referee says they can. In this case I totally agree that they shouldn't count for offside, and by the current rules I don't think they do.

As for this game, the defender had already taken part in defensive action during this attack, so not counting him as one of the last two players because he was not going for the ball wouldn't have been possible anyway.

i caught the last ten minutes of this but it was pure laughs. from what I saw it should've been 4 maybe 5-0 with the chances Netherlands had

quote:

Originally posted by RapidFire i caught the last ten minutes of this but it was pure laughs. from what I saw it should've been 4 maybe 5-0 with the chances Netherlands had

Well perhaps you should watch the full game before making such a comment.

Italy had plenty of chances. One cleared off the line before hollands second, van der sars's brilliant save froma pirlo free kick before hollands third, grosso's shot which was saved by van der sar then the ball cleared off the line before del piero got to and luca toni through on goal himself which he put over the bar quite terribly.

It was a great game of football where holland took their chances and italy never - if anything this game was more like the holland czech republic game from the last championships (4-3) than a 4 or 5 nil deficit.

quote:

Originally posted by chesco Well perhaps you should watch the full game before making such a comment. Italy had plenty of chances. One cleared off the line before hollands second, van der sars's brilliant save froma pirlo free kick before hollands third, grosso's shot which was saved by van der sar then the ball cleared off the line before del piero got to and luca toni through on goal himself which he put over the bar quite terribly. It was a great game of football where holland took their chances and italy never - if anything this game was more like the holland czech republic game from the last championships (4-3) than a 4 or 5 nil deficit.

and I just did. Italy did have a number of chances but netherlands had alot more effective ones (including a crossbar). they didnt play as bad as i had first thought when i had the score but its not like they had any incredibly close misses. this game belonged to the netherlands plain and simple.

quote:

Originally posted by RapidFire and I just did. Italy did have a number of chances but netherlands had alot more effective ones (including a crossbar). they didnt play as bad as i had first thought when i had the score but its not like they had any incredibly close misses. this game belonged to the netherlands plain and simple.

If you look back you will see I did say holland deserved the win. But it was closer than the scoreline suggested.

Oleeeee

quote:

Originally posted by RapidFire i caught the last ten minutes of this but it was pure laughs. from what I saw it should've been 4 maybe 5-0 with the chances Netherlands had

it should've been 6:2 rly

quote:

Originally posted by bananas it should've been 6:2 rly

yeah thats more accurate. if we're going to count all the near-misses then you have to tally up netherlands' as well which still would have left a big contrast in the scoreline.

I think I've never went as apeshit as I did last night. SWEET JEBUS!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.