EURO 2008

[Chupacabra]

im pretty sure thats not true. i just checked the rules and i didn't see anything about that, but soccer has a lot of grey area rules (which is a good thing (for example, consider rhe rules as to when a ball is judged to be handled by hand)). the italian player was injured on the ground...

[chopov]

if you were right at every second attack piles of injure-faking players would lay around behind the line...and this italian player was knocked out by his own keeper...so...bad luck for him...

edit:
3-0 ....yayy!

[chopov]

I found something about this offside problem in some additions from the FIFA to the official rules. But only in german...
http://www.dfb.de/fileadmin/Assets/pdf/regeln07008.pdf
page 72, lower blue field.

[Plan B]

pwned.
None of the usual dutchee consolidating bullshit, just keeping the pressure on.
I'm glad, but at the same time saddened by the unavoidable fascist, nationalistic fuckfest that is now unleased upon Holland for the next few days (until losing to France and Rumania, at least).

[seremtan]

lol, played in the Stade de Suisse Wankdorf

[MKJ]

rofl, this thread sure did backfire on chodepov..

[chopov]

?

[saturn]

Damn, that was a hot game. The Dutchees played with passion, that's something.

[losCHUNK]

the game is exciting to watch, but has been somewhat ruined. i feel bad for italy.

the missed offside goal changes the game around. [...]

Which offside goal do you mean? The 1-0? One italian player was behind the goal line so it wasn't offside...it's just that nobody knows this rule.

uh ? hes out of play ?

and i reckon that orange wouldve had this either way definately, they were a goal down, not a man down and from the start the italians were in trouble and i still reckon if van man went down he wouldve had a peno

[chopov]

The 1-0 was definitely not offside.
And regarding the situation before with van man and the italian goalie: kudos to Niesrelroy for his fair play and not going down. Nearly everyone would've went down in a most dramatic way to get the penalty...

[losCHUNK]

hmmm i think the rule is

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.

there was nothing deliberate about panucci playing rvn offside ;/

[chopov]

Thats why he wasn't cautioned.

But seriously: orange scored about 2 or 3 seconds after Panucci fell down, it was in the same game move (sp?). If Panucci would've laid there for a longer time, the ball being passed far more back and the dutch game being built up new, i.e. a new game move, it would have been different.

[Dark Metal]

hmmm i think the rule is

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.

there was nothing deliberate about panucci playing rvn offside ;/

Good call chunk. You always require the Referees permission before entering or leaving the field except during the normal course of play.

[chopov]

Yes, he left the field during normal course of play. And he was not fouled but knocked out by his own keeper. So imo it's just bad luck for him. Would the referees decision have been different if he'd fell down inside of the pitch? Imo no...

[Chupacabra]

it wasn't deliberate...

[losCHUNK]

umph, he didnt leave the field of play delibrately, he was barged out which means he was not in play

he even stayed down injured long before the ball got returned back into the box, outside of play, anyone who says different is just trying to cover an officials fuck up

[Chupacabra]

on a more general note, i think that any goal should be reviewable by officials for only two things should one team ask for it: offsides and whether or not the ball crossed the line.

i mean some people will say that it goes against traditions of the game, but traditionally games use to have scores of 5-4 and such. one goal didn't mean as much then as it does now. it's a shame to think (i dont want to debate this point here) but should the holland goal have been illegal and italy changed the way they play (which is what happened), italy loses. maybe that puts italy in a bad spot for the rest of the tournament and then the world champions are out. all that qualifying struggle is meaningless. trying to chase history and becoming only the second team to win a euro after worldcup is also gone. they'd lose so much. besides, i think the more important traditions of the game...fairness, giving equal chances to both sides and such are more important. letting a call ruin the game is lame.

in sports, whoever deserves to win should be good enough to overcome a bad call, but in soccer, there is too much riding on one goal. in american football, one bad call hurts a team but it won't hurt THAT badly. in baseball, basketball, you play best of seven games, so one call isn't the end of the world.

i just think the consequences of a wrong disallowed/allowed goal is disproportionate to simply chalking it up to just a simple bad call.

lets take for an example the controversial goal in england v. germany '66. i don't think it was a goal, and there was actually an oxford study that showed that it wasn't a goal. and i think the soviet linesman said that he gave the call to england because of revenge for WWII. yeah, germany lost 4-2, but germany changed the way they played after the bad call. maybe germany would have gone on to win it in penalties (they are, afterall, the king of penalty shootouts). you could forget about the glory of '66.

i understand the human element of bad calls, but let that happen during the course of the regular game...just let there be reviews of offsides/goal-line crossage when theres a goal IMO.

[losCHUNK]

i get what you mean but i just dont agree with it

goal line tech has been long debated but true champs can overcome unlucky results, luck plays a part in football and the more that goes the more boring it will become imo :/

i also dont want to see american football style "throwing ribbons onto the pitch" ? to review a call, i almost pissed myself laughing the 1st time i seen that

[Chupacabra]

true champs can overcome unlucky results, but when a lot of the biggest games are ties or are uber close or are 1-0 games or 0-0 games won on penalties, a bad call could easily have caused the other team to win. in this scenario, would you say that all of these teams are not true champs?

and yeah, throwing a flag on the pitch is lame, but you dont have to throw a flag on the pitch (maybe the coach can signal in a different way for soccer). furthermore, how many goals would be contested? most of the games are low scoring anyway. and take for example that in this holland v. italy game it was only one goal that was even controversial. it would not be that much of a diversion from the REAL game.

[losCHUNK]

aye and italy still had the opportunity to play for a draw and still have the opportunity to win there remaining games, 1 decision doesnt decide what happens

an aye the flag thing lol, i just dont want to see it anywhere near the sport, you let 1 thing pass and lordy knows whats coming next ;]

just my opinion though

[+JuggerNaut+]

best footy game on the 360. okay.... GO

[chopov]

it wasn't deliberate...

...and the paragraph chunk posted is all about deliberately leaving the field. so it may apply not at all to the concerning situation. In the end we just have different opinions which also is part of football.
Here on the telly 2 referees were being interviewed about this case and both by the way proved the decision as completely according to the official rules.

[losCHUNK]

thats the rule which is causing confusion though, and seeing as he didnt leave the field of play delibrately the rule doesnt apply

i know a lot of refs that say otherwise ;]

[Chupacabra]

of course, but in soccer, one goal means too much. it changes the whole game, and a bad call can make it change in a way that is unfair.

a good example of how important a goal is Liverpool v. Milan '07 in the champions league final. liverpool dominated that game, and milan got a fluke goal and won the game and became champions of europe. the best team in recent history was the france team of 2000 that won the euro championship. (the france team in 98 was a bit lucky Imo). they won that game BARELY in overtime. a single bad call would have destroyed that legacy unfairly and wouldnt have given france a chance to overcome the mistake. thankfully, that didn't happen.

giving the other team a chance is an important part of soccer. its the reason why golden goal was scrapped, and the reason silver goal was scrapped.

my point is that yes, a team can overcome it, but when one goal matters THAT much, changes the result of the game by scoreline and style of play, the consequences of one bad call is ridiculous. i dont mean to completely take out the human element of reffing, but just on two points.

[chopov]

aye and italy still had the opportunity to play for a draw and still have the opportunity to win there remaining games, 1 decision doesnt decide what happens

an aye the flag thing lol, i just dont want to see it anywhere near the sport, you let 1 thing pass and lordy knows whats coming next ;]

just my opinion though