|
[Group C] Netherlands - Italy (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| bananas |
| 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 :stongue: |
it should've been 6:2 rly |
|
|
| RapidFire |
| 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. |
|
|
| Frenkieee |
| I think I've never went as ape as I did last night. SWEET JEBUS! |
|
|
| noikeee |
| Guess I was wrong then, but that offside rule is lame. |
|
|
| The_G0dfather |
Ow yeah, way to start the tournament
trashing the world champion 3_0 :D |
|
|
| Siesta |
| nice game:D maybe we can win this tournament:D |
|
|
| denys envy |
After catching further replays, rule 11 - which was implemented on the call in the first goal makes perfect sense.
Panucci was hit out of bounds by Buffon, he looked up - saw that he wasn't able to get back into play in time. Then bent down and acted as if he was hurt. It was a dirty attempt to stop the game as Holland was threatening. Except it didn't work and the Dutch scored.
As soon as that happened he got up and ran to the referee arguing. The Italians can complain all they want about this call but it was as fair as anything and the rule should stand to prevent more players attempting lame play stoppages by faking injuries. |
|
|
| Dj_Day-V |
| HOLLAND!!:eyespop: |
|
|
| Dj_Day-V |
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLL!!
 |
|
|
| sensorium |
| quote: | Originally posted by eieregooie
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. |
It wouldn't be something players would rely on (i would hope), if implemented. And it wouldn't be much trouble for refs. Refs always have trouble making decisions anyway.
| quote: | | 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? |
The lines are in the field for many reasons, not just to set the ball boundaries. The offside line should start from the endline. And if a player is outside the endline then he isn't in play. He isn't inside the field, where the offside is counted one would think.
| quote: | 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'm not sure about this but I think the rule also applies to the players leaving the field for injuries. They also are counted as participating in play although they are outside the field. I may have to check that.
| quote: | Originally posted by denys envy
After catching further replays, rule 11 - which was implemented on the call in the first goal makes perfect sense.
Panucci was hit out of bounds by Buffon, he looked up - saw that he wasn't able to get back into play in time. Then bent down and acted as if he was hurt. It was a dirty attempt to stop the game as Holland was threatening. Except it didn't work and the Dutch scored.
As soon as that happened he got up and ran to the referee arguing. The Italians can complain all they want about this call but it was as fair as anything and the rule should stand to prevent more players attempting lame play stoppages by faking injuries. |
You said it: "he wasn't able to get back into play." He wasn't in play. It's just how I see it. |
|
|
| denys envy |
| quote: | Originally posted by sensorium
The lines are in the field for many reasons, not just to set the ball boundaries. The offside line should start from the endline. And if a player is outside the endline then he isn't in play. He isn't inside the field, where the offside is counted one would think. |
That's dumb, because a player could be in an onside position receiving a ball from, let's say, a cross. And a defender keeping him in this onside position would see this and promptly step out of bounds - resulting in an unfair offsides call. I don't see how that would be good at all. |
|
|
| sensorium |
| quote: | Originally posted by denys envy
That's dumb, because a player could be in an onside position receiving a ball from, let's say, a cross. And a defender keeping him in this onside position would see this and promptly step out of bounds - resulting in an unfair offsides call. I don't see how that would be good at all. |
It's not dumb. It could work if applied correctly. Stepping out of bounds wouldn't be abused, one would hope for the benefit of the game. If the offside starts in the midfield it should end somewhere, right? |
|
|
|
|
