Van Nistelrooy. Offside or onside?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UEFA

VIENNA (AFP) — Ruud van Nistelrooy's goal for Holland in their 3-0 trouncing of world champions Italy in their Euro 2008 opening Group C match was legal despite a clear offside said European football's governing body UEFA on Tuesday.
UEFA's secretary-general David Taylor said that even though van Nistelrooy was clearly offside the fact Italian defender Christian Panucci was behind the goalline without seeking permission from the officials placed the goalscorer onside.
"The goal has been correctly awarded by the team of referees," said Taylor.
"The player was not offside.
"When you're off the pitch, you're still relevant of the off side law. The referees applied the law in the correct manner. Unless you have permission to be off the pitch, you have to be on it. Most people are not aware of the law. There is no matter for debate."

---

the main part of that was this part:

"UEFA's secretary-general David Taylor said that even though van Nistelrooy was clearly offside the fact Italian defender Christian Panucci was behind the goalline without seeking permission from the officials placed the goalscorer onside."

What do you believe?
Was Van Nistelrooy Onside and the decision was a correct one
Or, was Van Nistelrooy OFFSIDE?

I think that Van Nistelrooy was actually Onside. Thats my opinion (as i like Netherlands)

Offside. Panucci was not active as he was behind the goal line. When players go off to get treatment, they have to go out of play meaning they are no longer active.

Who cares they won 3-0...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cardiff.City

Offside. Panucci was not active as he was behind the goal line. When players go off to get treatment, they have to go out of play meaning they are no longer active.

---

I would just like to say that he was active as he didnt have an officials permission to go off. ;) but its something to debate on - so i will fire back with what i believe in.
:) but still - feel free to post and try and better what i say with your words.

Quote:

---

Who cares they won 3-0

---

well, alot of people, it gets Ruud's goal count up making him one-step closer to being the top goal scorer (then getting an award for it later on)
so yeah, i just ownzored you there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Euapoual

Who cares they won 3-0...

---

If the first goal had not counted, anything could have happened.

EDIT: Since when have you needed an official's permission to go off the field. If I went to put some extra bandaging on my leg, I wouldn't need to tell the referee. I couldn't exactly run back on and stop the ball going out of play, could I?

A video of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jak-ish

A video of it?

---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...08/7363339.stm

About 3:00 minutes in.

Thanks for that. +rep
Forgot to watch it yesterday.

I'd say he wasn't.
A italy defender played him on, i think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cardiff.City

If the first goal had not counted, anything could have happened.

EDIT: Since when have you needed an official's permission to go off the field. If I went to put some extra bandaging on my leg, I wouldn't need to tell the referee. I couldn't exactly run back on and stop the ball going out of play, could I?

---

Yes but they should have increased there attack and created a stronger defence behind 1-0

Yeah, apparently you need to ask permission to leave field of play, so he was still active.

LOL THAT CLASS.

He was onside, simple.

HE WAS BLATANTLY OFFSIDE!!!

Dodgy rule that's arisen there.

He's onside.

onside! man behind the goal! :D

I checked it again.

And i'm now 100% sure, he is.
Buffon pushed the man behind the goal rofl.

Van Nistelrooy is offside.

How the **** can a player ask to go off the field when he's been clattered by the goalie.

I think it's to stop people lurking off the pitch and sneaking back on to save a shot or making a challenge. Because if you ask the ref to go off to get treatment you even have to wait until he says you can come back on. So the ref probably wants you to know when your off so he can give you the signal to come back on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Browney

I think it's to stop people lurking off the pitch and sneaking back on to save a shot or making a challenge. Because if you ask the ref to go off to get treatment you even have to wait until he says you can come back on. So the ref probably wants you to know when your off so he can give you the signal to come back on.

---

What if it's the other way round then.

I could be off on the sidelines, not in an offside the position, the ball could be played to me and I could scored. Is that a goal? No but according to UEFA's ruling it should be.

You apparently have to come on from the half-way line when you're off the pitch. So if you waited for the signal, came on at the halfway and wasn't offside, I guess so. Yeah it's a wierd rule, but I don't know really.

If anyone says he was on-side you deserve to be shot. A player was off the field, he was off the pitch and therefore out of play..

My gut reaction to the goal was that it was onside.
So I'll stick with that.

onside as there was no reason for him to be off the pitch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kent

onside as there was no reason for him to be off the pitch

---

So if a car run me over and I ended up in a different country, I'm an illegal immigrant?

The goalkeeper clattered him. He couldn't exactly get up.

I think offside, definately.
It makes no sense whatsoever that a player pushed off of the field counts as an active player. If an attacker can be 'inactive', why can't a defender be? Especially if they're injured and off the field of play.

The rule should be revised.

I think it wasnt offside as his own gk hurt him rather than another player as there could be no foul?

offside. simple.