3 years on...

[Foxy]

... and the snorter rag has to dig up old squealings!

CONTROVERSY over Ruud van Nistelrooy's "offside" goal for Holland against Italy has left Wednesday fans scratching their heads.
The incident revived memories of Alan Quinn's goal in the Bramall Lane derby in December, 2005.

And the van Nistelrooy affair has highlighted what at first glance appears to be a contradiction in the offside law.

The Quinn goal was correctly allowed to stand - despite Wednesday protests at the time that it should have been disallowed for offside against Neil Shipperley.

Basically, the official ruling was that Shipperley was behind the goalline so did not count for offside purposes.

But in the van Nistelrooy incident, a defender who was over the touchline DID count, so was playing the Dutch striker onside.

Keith Hackett, the referees' supremo from Sheffield, has confirmed to The Star that both goals were perfectly valid.

The laws are weighted in favour of the attacking side, and Hackett explained at the time of the Quinn issue: "When the ball was kicked, Shipperley was off the field, over the line, not interfering with an opponent or gaining an advantage, and he had gone over the line because of his momentum.

"If he had deliberately gone over the line, to escape being offside, the correct decision would have been to disallow the goal for offside and caution him for unsporting behaviour."

The Hackett's verdict on the van Nistelrooy goal was: "The assistant referee was correct, the defender who slid off the field is still regarded as active. Christian Panucci went off through contact with his own keeper, Gianluigi Buffon. He is still part of the game."

The referees' official code says: "An opposing player cannot be offside when one of the last two defenders has left the field of play".

Hackett, general manager of Professional Game Match Officials Ltd, admits that the offside laws can be difficult for everyone to understand.

He has also grown accustomed to seeing TV pundits getting it wrong when there is a contentious decision.

But the laws has evolved in such a way as to favour the attacking side: "If there's any doubt, the benefit goes to the attacking team.

The whole reason behind changes to the offside law was to allow more goals to be scored.

"There are times when the law has been blamed for something, when in fact the assistant referee has got it wrong."

KEY POINTS OF OFFSIDE LAW

It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position. A player will only be flagged if he becomes "active". Linesmen are sometimes criticised for a late flag - when all they are doing is waiting to see if a player becomes active.

Linesmen must watch for three things in deciding if a player becomes active.

1. Is he interfering with play? This means he must actually play or touch the ball. Attempting to play the ball does not count.

2. Is he interfering with an opponent's ability to play the ball, by obstructing an opponent's line of vision or movement, or distracting or deceiving him?

3. Is he gaining an advantage? This applies to a player in an offside position who plays a ball that rebounds to him from the keeper or woodwork. If he does not play the ball from the rebound, he is not penalised.

If the answer to any of the three questions is yes, then the player is penalised.

 

[Linz]

So basically, three years on and they're moaning about fuck all

 

[ScUzZ]

How was it offside?

Their keeper clattered an Italian defender who ended up behind the goal line, as he did it without approval from the referee isn't he still classed as being 'in play'?

Can't understand why people say it was offside

 

[Sensiblade]

Why have the Star brought that back up?
Pointless Journalism in my opinion.

 

[shorehamview]

Keith Hackett didn't say these things either.
1. For a club that accuses United fans of living in the past, Wendy like to drag up ancient history. How many of their fans weren't even born when they did us on THAT Boxing Day?
2. It was three years ago. In the past. Why witter on about it, the result won't be changed.
3. They smell of wee.

 

[matth]

Why have the Star brought that back up?
Pointless Journalism in my opinion.

Because they are twats.

 

[Linz]

Because they are twats.

Hahaha... straight talking of a Friday afternoon, I love it.

+rep

 

[keenzy]

Its really stupid. If a player is taking a throw in should it be hand ball as hes still and active player? Why do goals count, if a player is still active over the line why the ball?

If your off the pitch your not in play.

This means now, that if the ball had been cleared, the Italian defender still down then horse face could have done what he does best and shit line till the ball came back to him.

 

[Gazza1984]

Why have the Star brought that back up?
Pointless Journalism in my opinion.

Yes ditto

whats the point? slow news day???

 

[Kev Gee]

I thought that when reading it.

Total cunts!