brightlee

i will answer this question tonight..... after I watch the video....

brightlee

My point of view:
NO OFFSIDE.

The critical parts are:
Did Panucci fell due to foul? NO
Did he get injury that referee "called" him to leave the field? NO

Panucci didn't get any intention to leave the field to prevent offside situation. That's why he didn't get yellow card in this case.

There would be Offside ages ago in this situation. But people may never notice it the rules have been changed.

Some critical decisions that can help us to know the rules more and let the players "wake up".

During in these 4 years, there'd be 3 critical incidents that every player will remember it and do want to break it again.

1) Tim Cahill was taking off 1/2 way of his jersey and got booked, as he got his 2nd yellow card of that game, he got sent off (yellow for unsporting behaviour)
2) Javier Mascherano got his yellow card as he was keep talking to referee and questioning the decision of referee during first half vs Man Utd. As he got his 2nd yellow card in that incident, he should be sending off (yellow card for dissent word/action)
3) The goal was allowed by the European Cup, The Netherlands vs Italy, when Panucci was out of field and he'd be letting Van Nistelrooy onside in this situation.

I am asking some senior referees in my referee ass. and some of them are giving me same answer.. they think there'd be a great decision from Assistant Referee!

brightlee

BASEL, June 10 (Reuters) - Netherlands' controversial first goal in Monday's 3-0 Group C victory over world champions Italy at Euro 2008 was correctly awarded despite many observers believing it was offside, organisers UEFA said on Tuesday.

UEFA general secretary David Taylor told a news conference the officials correctly interpreted Law 11 which relates to offside when Ruud van Nistelrooy scored after 26 minutes.

He stated that Christian Panucci played him onside although the Italian defender was off the pitch at the time.

'The goal was correctly awarded. Not many people, even in the game, and I include the players, know this interpretation (of Law 11),' Taylor said.

He conceded, however: 'The Law itself does not deal with this situation directly at all,' but said that referees universally interpreted it in the way that the officials did on Monday night.

He said he had every sympathy with the wider footballing public for believing the officials called it wrong but said that Swedish referee Peter Frojdfeldt and his assistant Stefan Wittberg were absolutely correct in their interpretation.

Taylor told reporters: 'Even though the Italian defender (Christian Panucci) was off the field because of his momentum, he is still deemed to be part of the game and is therefore taken into considersation as one of the last two defending players.

'As a result Ruud Van Nistelrooy was not nearer the opponents' goalline than the second last defender and therefore could not be in an offside position.'

'This is a widely known interpretation of the offside law among referees but is not generally known by the wider footballing public and indeed many people in football,' he said.

'That is understandable because incidents like this are very unusual.

'However, there was a similar incident in a Swiss League match about a month ago between Sion and FC Basel and after a TV commentator initially suggested the referee had made a mistake, he later apologised publicly and congratulations to him.'

The goal caused confusion among both the Italian and Dutch players too, a number of whom looked astonished when the goal was awarded.

It also provoked some angry reaction among the Italian fans when it was replayed on the giant screens inside the Stade de Suisse stadium and led to Luca Toni being booked for dissent for protesting.

Taylor said his yellow card would stand and that goals would still be replayed on the screens throughout the tournament.

The International Football Association Board, the guardian of the game's laws, had the prerogative to examine the law if they thought the wording needed to be clarified or a loophole existed, Taylor said.

brightlee

This is the answer from my referee coach for this incident:

"UEFA confirmed that the player's (Christian Panucci)momentum carried him off the field and therefore remains part of the game. He could've returned to the field immediately and involved himself in active play, without penalty, for exactly the same reasons.

If he was injured in all of this then his status wouldn't have changed until the next phase of play.

He certainly could be treated off the field, while all this is going, but couldn't re-enter until given permission by the referee.

With regards to the injured player theory, if he was still on the field and not seriously injured, then play wouldn't be stopped so the same logic would be applied with him being off the FOP."

brightlee

I can tell you, the referee/linesman from that level, they know they make a great call for this situation.
No doubt about it.
Fingers cross

brightlee

Originally posted by zxc3201163 at 2008-6-11 23:50:


咁果日阿仙!ge賓特拿果球又點???
我唔係好明依條例

There was offside....
that situation is more clear...
For that case
you can goto Fifa.com.... goto Laws of the Game...
hand on.. I find the direct link to you....

http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/lawsofthegame.html

Click the box of: Interactive Guide to Offside Law 11>>

There should have "video" to help you in this case.

I read that last night