Van Nistelrooy's goal NOT OFFSIDE?

[snellfish]

Italian players were furious at Van Nistelrooy's goal
Dutch striker Ruud van Nistelrooy's opening goal in the win over Italy was legitimate, says Premier League referees' chief Keith Hackett.

Van Nistelrooy looked yards offside when he prodded home from close range.

But it appears he was played onside by defender Christian Panucci, who was lying off the pitch at the time.

"The fact is the assistant was correct; the defender who slid off the field is still regarded as active," Hackett told BBC Sport.

"Christian Panucci went off through contact with his own goalkeeper (Gianluigi) Buffon. He is still considered part of the game."

Uefa general secretary David Taylor said the officials had made the right decision.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...08/7445476.stm

This rule is new to me....in which case, what would happen if Sneijder was off the pitch aswell laying on the floor but nearer the advertising board than Panucci (in front of panucci), would the goal then be offside?

[miceri]

As far I interpret this, then if both were 'off' the pitch, then both are considered to be on the goal line. Hence, attacker in line with the last defender and on-side.

Dont think it really matters if the other guy is halfway towards the stands, its still on the goaline.

Lets be honest, who knew about this? Not me, how can you even begin to start explaining to the SWIMBO in terms of salt / pepper mill positions this?

[durera]

Originally Posted by miceri

As far I interpret this, then if both were 'off' the pitch, then both are considered to be on the goal line. Hence, attacker in line with the last defender and on-side.

Dont think it really matters if the other guy is halfway towards the stands, its still on the goaline.

Lets be honest, who knew about this? Not me, how can you even begin to start explaining to the SWIMBO in terms of salt / pepper mill positions this?

It's madness isn't it .. he's laying on the floor off the pitch after a collision with he goalkeeper and "matters" when an offside decision is made, but a striker stood on the edge of the six yard box can be deemed "not interferring with play" so long as he doesn't touch the ball.

Bring back the real offside rule, there was never anything wrong with it in the first place!

[Cedricantona]

Whether or not this bonkers Rule is true or not. I have no doubt that neither the linesman or the ref made the decision based on it.

Utterly stupid if true and i have never heard of this before.
All this interfering or not rubbish is stupid is as well.
good game though

[mrmc74]

Not a surprise to see Mr. "Three Yellow Cards" Poll say he'd never heard of the rule.

[J-Llo]

This is what we get for having people that no nothing about football make & enforce the rules.

[Wild Weasel]

It's to stop defenders deliberately stepping back off the pitch to make a forward offside. I can see why the rule is there, but it was harsh on Italy.

[Jeff]

There isn't such a thing as a non active defender in the off-side rule. It was on-side, I couldn't understand what the TV comentators were complaining out.

[Silver Arrow]

Originally Posted by Jeff

There isn't such a thing as a non active defender in the off-side rule. It was on-side, I couldn't understand what the TV comentators were complaining out.

Doesn't that also mean there is no such thing as an inactive attacker?

The rule has to be sorted out properly to make the game fairer for attack and defence. At the moment it favours attack too much.

Andy

[Wild Weasel]

Well they recently got rid of the Linesman having to see 'clear daylight' between the last defender and the forward to give offside. Now you have to be level to be onside. That favours the defence.