Vote: Does the Offside Law Need Changing?

Notice how quickly Panucci shot to his feet to whine and complain after the goal? He was fine, and perhaps likely taking his time off the field on purpose. Changing the rules would encourage more of that.

Jon, it’s not like he stepped out right before RvN scored. He was out for a good 4-5 seconds beforehand.

Offsides, no doubt. Keep the rules, but the ref should have used his discretion on this one.

Posted from  United States

By making the linesman/referee decide whether a defender is on or off the field of play (active or inactive) when the ball is struck is to open a can of worms that no one really wants to see. Is a player on the line in or out? How can you expect the officals to get this right without having more officals?

The rule is there, it is fair and as long as it is applied consistently there should be no complaint. It was tough luck for Panucci and Italy that he was unable to get back to his feet in time, but it is up to the players and coaches to understand the rule in all its applications and play the game accordingly, whether they can use it to their advantage or not.

It’s rare that I can praise UEFA but their speedy response and clear explanantion of the incident was excellent.

Maybe Panucci will get to his feet quicker and get back in the action, instead of taking a rest and playing the opposition’s strikers onside, or maybe Italy should find some younger players who are able to get up when they’ve been pushed over and winded.

Posted from  Canada

Debate is obviously futile at this point, but can somebody please point out where in that video Panucci “shot up to his feet” right after the goal? He can be seen from 3 angles laying down with his hands over his face, probably didn’t even see the shot or the goal. And if he had been pushed out of bounds by an attacker, then the call should have been for a foul, not offside… Alas, if that’s the rule, then it was called correctly, but I have my doubts on the correct interpretation of said rule, and I still think it doesn’t make any sense.

Posted from  United States

Let Buffon punch you in the face and then let’s see how many hours it takes you to get back up…

Posted from  United States

Watched the bbc version. Panucci saw the goal, he stared at the field right after the goal was made. IMO it’s very simple: panucci had no business being off the pitch. I’m VERY sure he didn’t need treatment, because he didn’t get any. He got back on the field (without permission, because he didn’t need any) quick and he played the full 90 minutes without any treatment whatsoever. So he had no business laying outside the pitch whining about some “injury”. If he was on the field this would be a non discussion, that does not change because he got knocked off the pitch by his own goalie.

And no, buffon did NOT hit him in the face. He knocked into buffon with his back against him and then fell sideways to the ground. Why he grabbed his face is anybody’s guess. Although to be fair, I can’t see whether he hit his face when he hit the ground. But from that position (sideways), highly unlikely. And come on, it’s their own freaking fault.

What we really should be discussing is why van persie got flagged offside while it was van de vaart who was, and he didn’t even touch the ball. It was a masterful play. So good that it confused even the ref. For shame, because van persie only had the goalie in front of him after that.

Dump the offside rules! Give us five on one fast-breaks and high scores! International football would double it’s fan base.

(from an American NBA fan)

Hopefully we’ll all get tired of beating this dead horse soon and move on to whatever other unpleasant surprise the Italian squad has for us.

I’m not trying to say that Italy didn’t deserve to lose. I’m not trying to say that that one call would have made a difference in the long run. I’m trying to say that that rule is unclear and unfair, if it is actually spelled out that way, or applied incorrectly if it’s not. He clearly did not leave the pitch voluntarily or on purpose, and to alledge that he stayed on the ground on purpose is ludicrous, since only 3 to 4 seconds max elapsed between when he got knocked out and when RvN shot. I simply don’t see how a player on the ground behind the goal line *in those specific circumstances* can be considered active to the purpose of an offside call. I can certainly see how a player could take advantage of that rule and step out of the pitch on purpose, but that is not what happened. That’s all.

Posted from  United States

Point is that he was not in any way hurt for the match to be paused to treat him. It was just another unfortunate down where, under normal circumstances, the game is not interrupted and the fallen player gets back up quickly to join the game. Like what happened now. The only difference is that it happened while he got knocked off the pitch by his own goalie.

Whether he’s able to immediately join the game as an “active” is irrelevant. Any person who goes down without it being a foul and where no treatment is needed is technically “inactive” till they get their ass back up seconds later to join the match. Are you suggesting that refs should stop the match every single time some smuck goes down and wait for him to get back up (with permission!) because “while he’s on the ground, he can’t do anything”? It’s ridiculous and we need to move away from this idiotic mess asap.

This might have been a real issue to discuss if panucci was actually hurt and needed treatment. But he didn’t, it’s just another guy going down and getting back up roughly 10-15 seconds after he went down. Happens all the time, nobody should stop the game for that. And nobody should go “he’s down so he doesn’t count”.

When I was a lad and got the ball to the baseline — as a forward — the key to the move was to step off the pitch for the obvious objective of resetting the offside line … and staying there until the move was over.

The rule is broke. The clarification needs clarification.

The goal should have been disallowed — and then the Dutch should have gone on and spanked the Italians.

Posted from  United States

this is completely ridiculous…only the netherlands fans can say that this rule should be applied to the letter…look at the reality and the time it took for him to fall and for the goal to get scored…is he supposed to ask for the referee permission when he is falling or in the few seconds that he is reeling from the blow…when is he supposed to ask for it?
the referees are supposed to rule in favour of the defence in case of doubt… this was a crappy decision and whatever the score line finally reflects, it was THE critical point in the game….

Posted from  Switzerland

Daryl-

Even you got it incorrect …

“… RvN was blatantly beyond the Italian line of defence when connecting with Giovanni van Bronkhurst’s shot/pass …”

You say “when connecting”. Sorry to be pedantic, but the offside rule is about where the offside player is located when the ball is played.

If we can’t get it right here at TheOffside.com, who in blazes can? Tommy Smyth?

Posted from  United States

Woah, nobody here is saying that the game should have been stopped or the goal disallowed because he was on the ground. I’m not even saying that he was hurt at all, but you would agree that if one gets knocked to the ground by a jumping goalkeeper one might need a few seconds to get up. All I am saying is that *under those circumstances* i.e. with the player on the ground after a contact, and only for 3 to 4 seconds, which can hardly be described as “whining on the ground for an injury”, I don’t think that that player should be considered active for the purpose of an offside call.

Posted from  United States

I’ve reffed youth league (so have unimpeachable credentials in the matter).

The trick to judging offsides effectively is to a) physically be in the right position on the touchline; b) watch down the imaginary line for shirts of the appropriate color; and c) listen for the sound of the foot striking the ball. It is the snapshot of color in the mind’s eye upon the sound of boot laces touching the panelled stitching which tells of any violation. This is what it sounds like: juggling snakes on a unicycle.

A rule should be intrinsically easy to enforce. Even with the “clarification” upon the addition of the “not interfering” sub-clause, this rule is impossible for humans to enforce consistently and must be simplified.

I am absolutely astounded that they get it right as often as they do.

Take away the offside rule! COMPLETELY!

Posted from  United States

let’s get rid of the offside rule. let’s change the name of this website to the ‘offyourknocker’. oh, and you can use your hands if you are past three defenders on a Sunday wearing a green shirt when playing in front of a crowd less than 24,000.

or let’s think for a second. there’s a reason this rule has been around as long as it has.

Right, we’re pretty much in agreement except for this point:

‘I don’t think that that player should be considered active for the purpose of an offside call.’

But why? As I said: if a player normally falls down, he’s not considered “inactive”. He’s not considered “out of the game till he gets back up”. This is EXACTLY what happened here. Why do the rules change because he conveniently did this outside of the pitch? Doesn’t change anything at all. He was very much part of the game, very much active because: 1. ref didn’t stop the game for him 2. he wasn’t injured in such a way that he couldn’t get back up seconds later to continue the game. That’s really all that matters. So what if he couldn’t make it back in time to do something? That doesn’t make sense. The attacking team should never be stopped while attacking just because some smuck on the other team falls down and can’t get back up fast enough “to be of any use”. Your own fault. That goes double in this “friendly fire” case.

And ruling in favor of the defense doesn’t make sense at all. The offside rule wasn’t made so people could pull the defensive offside trick. The fight was right there up in front of the goal. Clearly, the attackers shouldn’t be caught in such a lame trap if they bring the fight to them. And I bet it’s exactly this reason why the same thing doesn’t go for attackers.

And this offside out of pitch rule makes perfect sense to me. Let’s not even talk about defense abusing it (which they will). What if an attacker conveniently drops behind the goal, waits for someone to pass it in his direction (NOTE not TO him, because once he’s off the pitch, he doesn’t count, right? So you can’t play offside when you’re passing to “empty space”!), then the guy runs back out and boom, only him and the goalie. That’d be sweet to be an attacker who conveniently missteps and falls behind the goal line when his team is attacking. Give me a break.

Actually, #3 point 2 wouldn’t have mattered either way, because it happened too fast to have stopped the game even if he was really “inactive”: injured and in need treatment. They didn’t have the time to assess his status. Which brings me back to my point that you can’t pause every game because some smuck goes down and you can’t tell what his status is and how it’s unfair if he’s down while the rest is attacking. And #4: point 3 is particularly relevant because they clearly did it to their own men, making it all the more silly to hurt the at that time attacking side.

The goal should have been disallowed because
A. VnR was in an offside position when the ball was played
B. NoBusiness is a gimp
C. If it was on the other end of the pitch you’d be singing a different tune
D. Because I said so.

Good Luck with France…

Posted from  Canada

Why is reading so hard? The rule is perfectly clear. “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 … etc.” None of this applied here. Everything else is beside the point.

Posted from  Netherlands

Thank you Johannes. That is all I have been trying to say. That rule, as it’s written, does not apply to what happened last night. Period. Moving on. Italy still sucked last night, would have still lost and probably would have still lost by 3 goals, but the point of this post was to discuss the rule, and I think that if it allows a situation like that of last night to not be called an offside, than it’s at best unclear and at worst totally bogus.

Posted from  United States

If we care so much about rules and ignore what I just said, pls show me the rule that says any defender that is behind his own pitch (by their own actions) automatically and instantly don’t count. Thanks.

You can all have a look at the official rules:
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/laws_of_the_game_0708_10565.pdf
There is no mentioning of a player being outside of the field in the actual laws of the game, but in the “Additional Instructions and Guidelines for Referees” on p. 102, it is said:
“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.”
I think it is quite clear that Panucci did not step behind his own goal line in order to place an opponent in an offside position. If that had been the case, the rule says that in addition Panucci should have been cautioned by the referee, which did not happen.

Posted from  Finland

But there’s nothing in there that says “and if not, the player is immediately deemed inactive and out for the count.” That rule doesn’t exist, because that’s not how soccer is played. You’re all trying to interpret (change almost) and apply a rule that’s not for this situation.

It doesn’t matter whether he intentionally or unintentionally landed behind the lines for his “activity status”, so stop pretending it does. FACT is that there is no rule that states panucci was inactive so he wasn’t. And when the pass was made, he was in front of the attacker, so it’s not an offside. I don’t get how much simpler I can explain this?

As I said in the very first post, there was no point for that guy to be off the pitch. After the goal was made, he didn’t need treatment, he stopped grabbing for his face, he got up and continued the game after complaining to the ref, played the entire 90 minutes without treatment. There’s no special case here. Causing your own teammate to go down may have consequences for the match, boohoo cry cry and then deal with it.

After looking at the goal again – to me the fair call would be – if a Dutch player knocked him out of bounds – then that’s cheating and it would have been an offside.

But if another Italian player runs him over – well that shouldn’t count against the Dutch – should it?

His own goal tender knocked him down. He could have gotten up and played – but he didn’t. Too bad. Goal.

Posted from  United States