Awwwww Ref - Know The Laws

True that, had he gotten up straight away he would have been in play to block the shot. Silly attempt at trying to win the free kick. Awesome strike though, the dutch fully deserved to win it.

Chairman of Austria's refereeing commission Gerhard Kapl backed the decision by Swedish referee Peter Frojdfeldt and said it was "100% correct, without any doubt".

Kapl pointed out that article 11.4.1. of the refereeing code stipulated that "an opposing player cannot be offside when one of the last two defenders has left the field of play".

He explained the rule was brought in to stop players deliberately stepping off the field of play to make an opponent offside.

Got you.

More on the offside/onside decision

UEFA has emphasised that the goal scored by Netherlands
striker Ruud van Nistelrooy in last night's UEFA EURO
2008(tm)
match against Italy in Berne was valid, and that referee
Peter Fr�jdfeldt acted correctly in awarding the goal.

Not offside
UEFA General Secretary David Taylor was reacting to claims
from some quarters that Van Nistelrooy was standing in an
offside position when he scored the first of the
Netherlands' goals in their 3-0 win. "I would like to take
the opportunity to explain and emphasise that the goal was
correctly awarded by the referee team," he said. "I think
there's a lack of understanding among the general football
public, and I think it's understandable because this was an
unusual situation. The player was not offside, because, in
addition to the Italian goalkeeper, there was another
Italian player in front of the goalscorer. Even though that
other Italian player at the time had actually fallen off the
pitch, his position was still relevant for the purposes of
the offside law."

Still involved
The starting point, said Mr Taylor, is the Laws of the Game
- Law 11 - which deals with offside, and whereby a
player is
in an offside position if he is nearer to his opponents'
goalline than both the ball and the second last opponent.
"There need to be two defenders involved," the UEFA General
Secretary said. "If you think back to the situation, the
first is the goalkeeper, and the second is the defender who,
because of his momentum, actually had left the field of
play. But this defender was still deemed to be part of the
game. Therefore he is taken into consideration as one of the
last two opponents. As a result, Ruud Van Nistelrooy was not
nearer to the opponents' goal than the second last defender
and, therefore, could not be in an offside position.

Rare incident
"This is a widely-known interpretation of the offside law
amongst referees that is not generally known by the wider
football public," he continued. "Incidents like this are
very unusual - although I'm informed that there was an
incident like this about a month ago in a Swiss Super League
match between FC Sion and FC Basel 1893. [It was] initially
suggested that this [goal] was a mistake by the referee in
terms of the offside law - the commentator later
apologised
publicly, as he didn't realise that this was the correct
application of the law. "

Law applied
Mr Taylor concluded: "So let's be clear - the referees'
team
applied the law in the correct manner. If we did not have
this interpretation of the player being off the pitch, then
what could happen is that the defending team could use the
tactic of stepping off the pitch deliberately to play
players offside, and that clearly is unacceptable. The most
simple and practical interpretation of the law in this
instance is the one that is adopted by referees throughout
the world - that is that unless you have permission from
the
referee to be off the pitch, you are deemed to be on it and
deemed to be part of the game. That is why the Italian
defender, even though his momentum had taken him off the
pitch, was still deemed to be part of the game, and
therefore the attacking player put the ball into the net,
and it was a valid goal. The law in this place was applied
absolutely correctly."

Quote "lack off understanding amongst the footballing public" in regards the offside law - understatement of the year!!!!

Commentators on ITV (the youtube clip posted here passim) - were tearing strips off the ref and lino for not awarding the offside.

What if the defender is legitimately injured behind the goal line and cant get up? The game is going to continue as he is off the field.  Is the defender keeping the oposition on side until he is up and back on the field?

bobboltontawa22008-06-12 09:44:29

But didn't Panucci's subsequent actions vindicate the ref? He was rollingaround as if in dying throes, and as soon as the goal was allowed he was leading the charge at the ref and protesting. So clearly he was not that injured as if to require immediate medical attention.

I think you just have to put the trust in the referees to make the calls. It's a sloppery slope if the refs become expected to stop the play every time a player goes down, seemingly injured - in such circumstances, there'll be a spate of defenders falling down and wrihing in agony every time a forward goes around them or shows to have more pace than them. Ultimately, the refs are in a better position than any of us watching to make those judgment calls, and we just have to trust that they'll get them right more times than not. I assume that the ref must have seen the contact that Buffon made with Panucci, and ruled that it did not warrant a stoppage of play. In my mind at least, the goal was perfectly legitimate.

Hey ref(s)!!!

Quaresma goal for Portugal today, seen plenty like them over the years, how come he's not deemed to be offside? Answers probably simple but yeah, would like to know properly.

He was behind the ball, simple as that.

Thanks EG. Was always confused by goals scored like this. Will also help me when i am forced to do the lino duties every now and then.

Exactly El G. Funnily enough it's the second time someone today I've seen that question. 

I thought there was another contentious goal this morning - the Polish one against Austria. I am sure the Polish scorer was offside when the ball was squared to him, yet there was no flag and the commentator didn't even mention there was a hint of offside.

Have I gone crazy and it was a perfectly legitimate goal, or was this an oversight by the officials?

If you look at the lino he isn't in line with play.  He is standing on the goal line. When the goalkeper cam out to close the angle he played the polish striker offside.

I have something to ask a quality ref.

The attacker breaks into the box and takes a shot which goes wide, seconds later the attacker is brought down with a nasty sliding tackle, probably worthy of a yellow card.
Now the next bit baffles me. Despite the shot having gone wide and out of play prior to the referee blowing the whistle for the foul, he indicates for a penalty after booking the player.
I was under the impression that it would just be a booking then start the game with a goal kick.

Seems like a pretty clear penalty to me.

If the ball is out of play when the foul is commited, then it should be a booking/sending and a goal kick. If the same thing happened when the ball was already out for a throw in, you give the throw in and book the player

Depending on the time frame (I know the first post said a few seconds) what if the player making the challenge is beginning to slide (on a classic Wellington wet slippery pitch) before the shot but only makes contact just after the ball goes out for the goal kick?

The ball is out at the time of the challenge, but the would-be tackler could have put off the shooter...

Wibblebutt2008-06-18 09:54:36

Hey Ref! On what grounds does a referee decide to postpone a match? How exactly do you define a pitch to be "unplayable" or "unsafe"? Just curious as we have had some interesting weather and ground conditions these past few weeks where games have gone ahead.

Where, in the opinion of the referee he finds the picth to be unplayable ie 'waterlogged' or unsafe 'frozen'.

Key areas In most refs opinions I would think on deciding the playablity of a ground would be the conditions of the key areas of the park ie standing water, excessively soft/muddy  in the goal area (eg KP2 for many weeks) and the goal kick dropping zone  , ie the middle third of the park (eg KP1 currently)

or kilbirnie park, those bloody cricket wickets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

or newtown park, where the ball doesn't even bounce in the middle 

Sadly I don't even think it was the cricket pitches which were the issue on Saturday, was just some puddles in the goal box and near the clubrooms.... and sadly a sweeping broom couldn't clear it off....
But they definately need to something about people training/playing on it midweek which I've heard still seems to be happening.

Still,  after watching Crawford Green (at 12.30) turn into a mudpit surrounding a swimming pool in the centre circle, and then seeing another team turn up to play a 2.30 game there on saturday, I was shocked to hear that a woman's game was played there as well on Sunday. Talking to one of the girls who played they said it was atrocious.

Saw you playing at Crawford on the way to Seatoun and thought it didn't bode well for us.

Jokes aside, this applies to nearly every football pitch in Wellington.