This is a reminder of 3 IMPORTANT RULES:
1- External self-promotion websites or apps are NOT allowed here, like Discord/Twitter/Patreon/etc.
2- Do NOT post in other languages. English-only.
3- Crack/Warez/Piracy talk is NOT allowed.
Breaking any of the above rules will result in your messages being deleted and you will be banned upon repetition.
Please, stop by this thread SoccerGaming Forum Rules And Guidelines and make sure you read and understand our policies.
Thank you!
UltrasViola;2534801 said:cut the crap. dont forget how your team was created and by whom.
ישראל;2534916 said:I cen't believe it ! the world cup champion Italy lost to Netherlands !!! 0:3!!!
Poor poor Italy what happen to the world cup 2006 champion???
And a boring match between France and Romania.
I would say the groupe of boring .
$teauA;2534782 said:hey rony, his team doesn't even technically exist.
bybuti;2535103 said:...anyway, Italy lost 3-0, where's the matter to talk about that goal ? :s
bybuti;2535103 said:As I know, Panucci it was part of game. When a player is out he should inform the referee and not just get out like that way. It's his and maybe Buffon problem if he was injured or anything else. He was a part of game in that moment so for me that goal is totally clear.
anyway, Italy lost 3-0, where's the matter to talk about that goal ? :s
modena_10;2535120 said:then whats the point of this forum, if you can't talk about major talking points of a game. apparently i can't express an opinion and maybe get some intelligent football conversation going but its shot down, telling me to move on.....
modena_10;2535120 said:then whats the point of this forum, if you can't talk about major talking points of a game. apparently i can't express an opinion and maybe get some intelligent football conversation going but its shot down, telling me to move on.
so you believe the player should inform the referee about being injured while he is injured(or off the field)? all this while your team is in danger of being scored on. i fail to understand your thinking or reasoning.
the controversial goal made the game what it was. the circumstances of that goal profoundly changed the dimension of the game. if you can't see that then you see the game to simple minded. all you see is the 3-0 scoreline. both of the other goals came on the counter while we were chasing the game.
i can only look to the positives of the game, which were few. we did create several chances in the 2nd to bring the game level. just creating those chances are great but we must improve in the next game by actually putting the ball in the back of the net.
UEFA said:UEFA supports Dutch goal decision
UEFA has emphasised that the goal scored by Netherlands striker Ruud van Nistelrooy in last night's UEFA EURO 2008™ match against Italy in Berne was valid, and that referee Peter Fröjdfeldt acted correctly in awarding it.
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 deal with offside, 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 among 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."
RobbieD_PL;2535398 said:You shouldn't have players intentionally stepping off the field, but I don't think this was the case with Panucci.