Holland v Italy

[Platypuss]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 363339.stm

I-player goals

[rabidbee]

Did the Dutch number their shirts with masking tape?

[papereyes]

So confusing is the offside rule nowadays

This element's not confusing at all though, and it's always been this way.

I've had it a few times in local park football.

I was about to say - that bit above is REALLY obvious. You might not know it but the moment you do (if, indeed, it is correct), it is as clear as anything,

[papereyes]

So basically no one knows 100% if it WAS offside or not, because the whole active/inactive thing is being dragged up....for a bl**dy defender this time...sort it out FIFA!

the Italians can feel hard done by as they haven't actually played badly,

Some pretty bad defending. Third goal - bloke sprints 60 yards through the middle and no-one covers him, as the ball breaks right to Sneijer(?), the three italians break: near post, far post and ball - leaving the same guy unmarked in the middle for when the cross comes in. I dunno, but one really could have stuck a bit closer to him there? Maybe?

They just seemed to back off a little bit too much.

And up front. Toni isn't a target man in terms of holding it up, is he? Then there's little support from the midfield. There were tidy passages of play but nothing great until del Piero came on and sped things up a lot.

[papereyes]

One thing that impresses me is the passing and retention of the ball. Why can none of the home nations manage to use the ball like this?

because they're not very good?

because players in the England midfield think a 60 yard Hollywood pass is better than a 10 yard pass to feet?

[rabidbee]

One thing that impresses me is the passing and retention of the ball. Why can none of the home nations manage to use the ball like this?

because they're not very good?

because players in the England midfield think a 60 yard Hollywood pass is better than a 10 yard pass to feet?

It's also about movement, though, isn't it? Passing it 10 yards back and forth won't get you anywhere if your players are all static.

[Kitsondinho]

So basically no one knows 100% if it WAS offside or not, because the whole active/inactive thing is being dragged up....for a bl**dy defender this time...sort it out FIFA!

Got nothing to do with him being active or inactive. He's in advance of the attacker and behind the goal line is still considered to be part of the playing area for a defender. It was 100% onside as defined by the laws of the game. If a defender fannying about near the corner flag 50 yds from play is active in playing someone onside then so can a defender who has stepped behind the goal line in the natural course of the game.

Poll is a publicity seaking arse who would argue black is white if it got him noticed.

How is it nothing to do with inactive? If the assistant ref considers the italian defender as active the goal stands. If he doesn't, its offside.

Also can someone please explain how a player down injured is active in play, when he behind the goal line, if a striker can avoid being offisde by crossing the very same goal line, thus making himself inactive?

[papereyes]

One thing that impresses me is the passing and retention of the ball. Why can none of the home nations manage to use the ball like this?

because they're not very good?

because players in the England midfield think a 60 yard Hollywood pass is better than a 10 yard pass to feet?

It's also about movement, though, isn't it? Passing it 10 yards back and forth won't get you anywhere if your players are all static.

The two should come together, shouldn't they?

Is it simply down to having a bit of intelligence about the way you're playing?

[Southbank Old Boy]

So basically no one knows 100% if it WAS offside or not, because the whole active/inactive thing is being dragged up....for a bl**dy defender this time...sort it out FIFA!

Got nothing to do with him being active or inactive. He's in advance of the attacker and behind the goal line is still considered to be part of the playing area for a defender. It was 100% onside as defined by the laws of the game. If a defender fannying about near the corner flag 50 yds from play is active in playing someone onside then so can a defender who has stepped behind the goal line in the natural course of the game.

Poll is a publicity seaking arse who would argue black is white if it got him noticed.

How is it nothing to do with inactive? If the assistant ref considers the italian defender as active the goal stands. If he doesn't, its offside.

Also can someone please explain how a player down injured is active in play, when he behind the goal line, if a striker can avoid being offisde by crossing the very same goal line, thus making himself inactive?

All defenders are active.

I think I used that term earlier to try and make it clearer, that obviously didnt work did it.

The only time a defender is discounted is if he's off the field receiving treatment.

[soggy biscuit]

So basically no one knows 100% if it WAS offside or not, because the whole active/inactive thing is being dragged up....for a bl**dy defender this time...sort it out FIFA!

Nope. Ref did not signal for the player to leave the pitch so he was still active and therefore Van Nistelrooy was onside.

The chairman of Austria's refereeing association has stated that it was the correct decision, referring to a rule 11.4.1 of 'the refereeing code' (whatever that is)

[soggy biscuit]

The linesman applied UEFA’s ruling 100 per cent, He evaluated Panucci’s position as the player who kept Van Nistelrooy onside. “I thought it was offside but the replay showed Panucci off the pitch and playing Van Nistelrooy onside

[Rawlie19]

The players clearly don't understand the law either then. And not just in this game. One of the other games (I think it was on Sunday, but I'm not sure) an attacker got himself a long way offside while his team were still pinging it about in the box, and so stepped just behind the goal line next to the goal post waiting for play to break down or for an opportunity to get himself back onside quickly. Wouldn't he still have been offside anyway? Or I guess he would be deemed as not interfering in play... In which case, wasn't that defender 'not interfering in play' either? A little unfair... But hey, he's Italian so I don't really care. Great game.

[Southbank Old Boy]

The players clearly don't understand the law either then. And not just in this game. One of the other games (I think it was on Sunday, but I'm not sure) an attacker got himself a long way offside while his team were still pinging it about in the box, and so stepped just behind the goal line next to the goal post waiting for play to break down or for an opportunity to get himself back onside quickly. Wouldn't he still have been offside anyway? Or I guess he would be deemed as not interfering in play... In which case, wasn't that defender 'not interfering in play' either? A little unfair... But hey, he's Italian so I don't really care. Great game.

Like you say, he might be deemed "inactive" and/or "not interfering" but the law is weighted in favour of the attacking team and defenders don't have that luxury. Same thing happens when a full back on the far side of the pitch can play an attacking player onside on the other side of the pitch even though he'd not be interfering with that player.

It boils my blood that the commentators and pundits spent so much time and energy slagging of the officials who made a very good decisions in real time. The commentators got it wrong for hours!!!

[soggy biscuit]

It boils my blood that the commentators and pundits spent so much time and energy slagging of the officials who made a very good decisions in real time. The commentators got it wrong for hours!!!

Keith Hackett (I think) wrote a really good article a while back that explained how straight forward the active/inactive' offside rule actually is and how the current thinking of 'well the new changes to the offside rule is just so confusing' is just something people picked up from the media who haven't bothered trying to understand it.

[Southbank Old Boy]

It boils my blood that the commentators and pundits spent so much time and energy slagging of the officials who made a very good decisions in real time. The commentators got it wrong for hours!!!

Keith Hackett (I think) wrote a really good article a while back that explained how straight forward the active/inactive' offside rule actually is and how the current thinking of 'well the new changes to the offside rule is just so confusing' is just something people picked up from the media who haven't bothered trying to understand it.

Not as good as Dick Sawdon-Smith though!

[Whore Jackie]

Did the Dutch number their shirts with masking tape?

It's a minor point, but I do wish that UEFA had standardised the typefaces for names and numbers for these Euros. Some of the Puma ones are pretty rank.
Quite like the Dutch collar on their Nike kit. Nice touch.

[TBM]

So basically no one knows 100% if it WAS offside or not, because the whole active/inactive thing is being dragged up....for a bl**dy defender this time...sort it out FIFA!

Got nothing to do with him being active or inactive. He's in advance of the attacker and behind the goal line is still considered to be part of the playing area for a defender. It was 100% onside as defined by the laws of the game. If a defender fannying about near the corner flag 50 yds from play is active in playing someone onside then so can a defender who has stepped behind the goal line in the natural course of the game.

Poll is a publicity seaking arse who would argue black is white if it got him noticed.

How is it nothing to do with inactive? If the assistant ref considers the italian defender as active the goal stands. If he doesn't, its offside.

Also can someone please explain how a player down injured is active in play, when he behind the goal line, if a striker can avoid being offisde by crossing the very same goal line, thus making himself inactive?

EVERY player is considered on the field of play UNTIL the referee gives you permission to leave - the ref didn't say he could leave so was considered on the pitch at the nearest point which happened to be the goal line - so it was onside, end of!!!

[Jack Celliers]

One thing that impresses me is the passing and retention of the ball. Why can none of the home nations manage to use the ball like this?

because they're not very good?

because players in the England midfield think a 60 yard Hollywood pass is better than a 10 yard pass to feet?

It's also about movement, though, isn't it? Passing it 10 yards back and forth won't get you anywhere if your players are all static.

It's about first touch as well - a good one makes it seem as though the pass was better than it actually was.

The 60-yard hollywood pass is OK if it is David Beckham making it, but England's problem is one of ego. Steven Gerrard and even Rio Ferdinand will try to join in and the ball gets lost. I thought there were signs in some of the last two Capello games that we were improving in balll retention,

[Jack Celliers]

It boils my blood that the commentators and pundits spent so much time and energy slagging of the officials who made a very good decisions in real time. The commentators got it wrong for hours!!!

Keith Hackett (I think) wrote a really good article a while back that explained how straight forward the active/inactive' offside rule actually is and how the current thinking of 'well the new changes to the offside rule is just so confusing' is just something people picked up from the media who haven't bothered trying to understand it.

It was a brilliant article, and Hansen, Lineker and Shearer* should have it taped to their studio desk. It explained the offside rule using the letters PIG:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/ma ... l.comment3

The idea is that terms like interfering with play and gaining an advantage have very specific meanings: gaining an advantage is only that thing a striker does when he scores from a rebound.

[Sarah Star]

I wish Reading would play more like Holland.