I was wrong - ref was right - d'oh

So it looks as though the referee got it right last night and it was me (and most probably the majority of us) who got it wrong.

I am part of many forums and discussions on football. On one e-mail list (a Portsmouth Football Club one - no surprise there) a good friend of mine (and a referee) bemoaned the fact that the ITV commentary team didn't know the rules with regards to offside. So we had a discussion about it and I thought it would be a rather interesting one to read.

Tim's words are in italics whereas mine as in the standard font.

I thoroughly enjoyed the Holland Italy game last night, but became incredibly frustrated / angry by the standard ignorance of commentators regarding the first goal, which they insisted was a reffing error and clear offside.

Fact an Italian defender was behind the goal line but clearly still active in that he was attempting to regain his feet and return to the pitch. If he had left the pitch and become inactive (a) he should have been cautioned for leaving the Field of play without permission and (b) would have had to wait for the official to signal him back on.

He therefore equates to someone standing on the goal line, which means that the keeper as the then last but one man becomes the off side line, and the keeper was clearly between RVN and the other attacker and the goal line, therefore they are both on side and indeed would have been stood even further forward.

Whereas I disagree (and that is rare on a reffing front with you) The defender makes no attempt to regain his feet and stays down and in my view clearly plans to stay down until that phase of play was over. He had gone out of play not because he took himself out of it voluntarily but because he'd gone for a ball and then fallen over after jumping for the ball.

Had Panucci got up and made a move to get back on the pitch then I think you could argue he was active. He was very clearly inactive and because he was off the field of play should not of been involved in the play.

I don't know the exact rules regarding this but I really think the goal should not of counted. If this is the way things are, what is to stop strikers shoulder barging defenders behind the goal and therefore
being onside for an attack?

If they barged someone off the pitch that would be a foul... A defender does NOT need to be active to keep people on side. Any player who is temporarily off the pitch remains active, unless they deliberately attempt to stay off it, in which case they should be cautioned for leaving the field without permission, and not allowed back on until play has been stopped and restarted with an indirect free kick.

Equally had an attacker only been off the pitch he would be flagged off side (correctly) if close enough to the play to be regarded as active even if off the pitch, and cautioned if at any point he was suggesting that he would not return to the field as quickly as he could.

Having just watched the goal again I still say no goal. Robbie Keane stayed off the pitch deliberately for Spurs v us and wasn't booked - although the ref did say had to score he would've booked him. Panucci collided with his goalkeeper and was on the floor, off the pitch, injured. How can an injured player off the field be regarded as active?

If the rules state that it was a goal (which they clearly do having listened to you, Keith Hackett and the Austrian bloke) then the rule is wrong. That goal was given correctly but the rule needs to be changed as I don't see why Panucci and the Italians should be punished for having one of their players laying injured off the pitch - which is what happened in this case.

Still - it is a good one for discussion when all the Select Group meet up for their pre-season pow wows. Also I've noticed they've yet to clamp down on shirt pulling in the box, which they said that they would do.

Keane should probably have been booked, although the referee could say that even were he regarded as on the field he was not interfering or influencing play and therefore as an attacker not active. Panucci didn't appear to receive treatment even subsequent to the goal?

If you allow people, who may be injured to stay off the pitch to play an offside trap, I suspect we all know where we are headed, and we suddenly have attackers who one minute are miles on side becoming offside as defenders collapse prostrate behind the goal line. I accept that Panucci did not leave the pitch voluntarily, however had he been in the net - would he have tried to kick the ball to stop it entering the goal - answer = almost certainly yes?

How would you change the rule so that a player off the field who is injured cannot keep an attacker on side? Had Panucci been seriously injured near the corner flag but just on the pitch, would that make it any better?

I don't think there is a whole heap wrong with the law, and even if there were I am not sure any alternative would make things any better - but open to a suggestion.

My suggestion would simply be that the Italian defenders other than Panucci should have been as aware as RVN...

I am still considering if I can come up with anything that can sort out this rule. I really don't think that Italy should be penalised for having a player off the pitch, who clearly don't choose to go off. It is certainly an interesting one to ponder.