The Best Ref Descion Ever ?

[paulkaneatemyhamster]

from BBC Sport

 

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.

 

"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."

 

What looked a desperately poor decision was, in fact, a brilliant piece of officiating, according to the chairman of Austria's refereeing commission Gerhard Kapl and Premier League referees' chief Keith Hackett.

 

Both said Van Nistelrooy was played onside by Italy's Christian Panucci, who had been injured seconds earlier and was lying behind the goal when the Dutch striker scored.

 

Kapl said the goal was "100% correct, without any doubt", quoting article 11.4.1. of the refereeing code that states "an opposing player cannot be offside when one of the last two defenders has left the field of play" - as in the case of Panucci.

 

Hackett added: "I have listened to the commentators criticising the first Holland goal stating that Van Nistelrooy was offside.

Christian Panucci went off through contact with his own goalkeeper Buffon.

 

"He is still considered part of the game.

 

"The fact is the assistant was correct. The defender who slid off the field is still regarded as active."

 

Kapl added that the rule was specifically designed to prevent a team causing a deliberate offside."

[K-9]

Had look at FIFA rules and it only says player is not offside if defender DELIBERATELY steps off the pitch to gain an advantage. Nothing even close to Hackett's explanation.

[Milners]

Had look at FIFA rules and it only says player is not offside if defender DELIBERATELY steps off the pitch to gain an advantage. Nothing even close to Hackett's explanation.

 

The link minijc put though with FIFA rules on the offside is pretty poor.

 

mmm I'm amazed the goal stood to be honest. If the player was injured but went off to get treatment without the ref say so then then he should not be active as he would have to get permission from the ref to get back on the pitch.

[florin_raducioiu]

Oh ma heed

[Guest rocket_scientist]

If thats right pkamh, then thanks. It's obvious the BBC "experts" didn't know the rule.

 

rocket travolta: "No kiddin. I didn't know that"

 

Uma Mia Wallace: "Why would you?"

 

Good find.

[K-9]

If thats right pkamh, then thanks. It's obvious the BBC "experts" didn't know the rule.

 

rocket travolta: "No kiddin. I didn't know that"

 

Uma Mia Wallace: "Why would you?"

 

Good find.

Just the typical refs union sticking up for a fellow ref as happens after all major incidents. Like McCurry got backed by top brass of refs after his unbelievable match when he gave Rangers everything against United. Like Poll in last world cup when he showed same players 2 yellow cards but never sent him off.

[Ingolfsson]

The boy Hackett's a r!ngpiece.

 

Ruud was f$ckin offside.

[paulkaneatemyhamster]

but there's a big difference in what McCurry & Poll did and what the ref did last night

 

If, as fifa claim, the ref got it right, i shows how daft the offside rule is, but also shows how good a ref that guy is to know that rule.

 

we may not like th rule, but credit where credit is due.

[OneZanderDiamond]

If a Dutch player had shoved Panucci off the park it would have been offside, but it was Buffon who shoved him so why should Netherlands be punished.

 

May well be the best refereeing decision ever.

[madjockmcferson]

frigging terrible decision

[Tommy]

I can accept a goal being allowed if defender decided to step off field

of play meaning a forward was offside because defender was being a smart@rse.

But just because defender ended up off pitch when trying to win the ball surely

shouldnt come into it - there were not 2 men between scorer and the goal and

the defender was not still in play.

I cant see anything in Laws of game to agree with last night's decision.

[Guest LondonScottish]

I can accept a goal being allowed if defender decided to step off field

of play meaning a forward was offside because defender was being a smart@rse.

But just because defender ended up off pitch when trying to win the ball surely

shouldnt come into it - there were not 2 men between scorer and the goal and

the defender was not still in play.I cant see anything in Laws of game to agree with last night's decision.

 

 

That is what the offside rule says. How can a player be "active" if he's behind the goal.

[K-9]

That is what the offside rule says. How can a player be "active" if he's behind the goal.

Does the rule actually say this though? Can anyone find this article 11.4.1 that Hackett is on about? Certainly nothing in FIFA rules of the game available on their site bar the mention that if a player deliberately goes off the park in order to make another offside then player is not offside and player should be then booked when ball goes out of play. But player never got booked so not that rule then!!

 

So many forums about football but not 1 person managed to find this rule 11.4.1

[I Hate Nacho Novo]

If a Dutch player had shoved Panucci off the park it would have been offside, but it was Buffon who shoved him so why should Netherlands be punished.

 

May well be the best refereeing decision ever.

 

 

I actually agree what your saying in why should the dutch be punnished for this ...

 

but also i still think it is a bad decision because i think it is a mistake in him giving the goal as i dont think the officials spoted that he was offiside without panucci coming into the equation and they have just came up with this rule to cover themselfs.

 

This is something that has to be resolved and a set off Offside rules have to be made up that actually make sense.

[Milners]

Does the rule actually say this though? Can anyone find this article 11.4.1 that Hackett is on about? Certainly nothing in FIFA rules of the game available on their site bar the mention that if a player deliberately goes off the park in order to make another offside then player is not offside and player should be then booked when ball goes out of play. But player never got booked so not that rule then!!

 

So many forums about football but not 1 person managed to find this rule 11.4.1

 

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdevelopi...fen%5f47383.pdf

 

Not sure if its in there

[Guest LondonScottish]

Does the rule actually say this though? Can anyone find this article 11.4.1 that Hackett is on about? Certainly nothing in FIFA rules of the game available on their site bar the mention that if a player deliberately goes off the park in order to make another offside then player is not offside and player should be then booked when ball goes out of play. But player never got booked so not that rule then!!

 

So many forums about football but not 1 person managed to find this rule 11.4.1

 

 

It said it in primary three as soon as we stopped using running-goalies.

[K-9]

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdevelopi...fen%5f47383.pdf

 

Not sure if its in there

Nope - only thing in there is the one i mentioned on page 27 of 37:

 

"If a defending player steps behind his own goal line in order to place an opponent in an offside position, the referee shall allow play to continue and caution the defender for deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee's permission when the ball is next out of play"

 

Now clearly the player never deliberately left the field of play in order to place the opponent in offside position and clearly the referee and his assistant put this rule into play since player was never booked.

[Milners]

It said it in primary three as soon as we stopped using running-goalies.

 

I heard the Rob Roy Reds still use running goalies.

[paulkaneatemyhamster]

http://andersonslounge.blogspot.com/2008/0...is-time-at.html

 

fantastic read on last nights events

[madjockmcferson]

it appears the decisive factor is that to be officially off the pitch you need the referees permission......panucci didnt ask permission so he is still on the pitch.begs the frigging question as to what teh frigg you are supposed to do if an opposition player pushes you off the pitch (accidentally) - do you have to ask the frigging referee for permission to be off the frigging pitch as you fly over the line?!?

 

friggin bullsh*t like.....

[minijc]

I mentioned it last night, Panucci should have been booked for it, he knew he wasna getting past where RVN was.

[Crossbow]

Good call by the ref if that is what the rules say - when i saw it thought the Dutch had stolen it - but if a player is active unless the ref says he isn't then he wasn't offside and it was a good goal - the Italians were well beaten anyway.

 

The keeper could fell one of his own defenders to make someone offside otherwise!

 

[OneZanderDiamond]

it appears the decisive factor is that to be officially off the pitch you need the referees permission......panucci didnt ask permission so he is still on the pitch.begs the frigging question as to what teh frigg you are supposed to do if an opposition player pushes you off the pitch (accidentally) - do you have to ask the frigging referee for permission to be off the frigging pitch as you fly over the line?!?

 

friggin bullsh*t like.....

 

If an opposition player had shoved Panucci then the goal wouldn't have stood

[Guest rocket_scientist]

That is what the offside rule says. How can a player be "active" if he's behind the goal.

 

The concept of whether a player is active or not only applies to attacking players, I think. A defensive player can be lying deid at the corner flag playing everyone on.

[madjockmcferson]

still a bullsh*t decision....whatever anyone says

[K-9]

Still nobody in the world seems to have found this rule that has been mentioned.