Holland v Italy game thread

[Phenotypic Dai]

Is no-one watching this then?

Are you all off watching that film or something?

Van Nistlerooy has just scored from an obscenely offside position.

Still, musn't grumble. He's in my fantasy footie team.

 

[pastieburt]

clearly offside, this is why they should bring in video replays.

 

[twistedAM]

better than this afternoon's game

hope Italy come back into it

 

[two sheds]

Nah that was never offside. Hup hup holland

 

[goldenecitrone]

Good to see the Italians getting a good kicking. Hup hup Holland!

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

great stuff so far. makes up for the dreary on earlier on. italy out in the group stages?!

 

[1927]

Mmmmm. Puts Wales' recent defeat into perspective!

 

[T & P]

Holland was a joy to watch.

Poor Italy. Couldn't happen to a nicer team

Well on that form the Dutch must be serious contenders. That doesn't mean they'll keep it up throughout... but I really enjoyed their attacking football.

 

[Sasaferrato]

That was a good game. Italy squandered a couple of real chances though.

 

[softybabe]

Good to see the Italians getting a good kicking. Hup hup Holland!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ that

 

[marty21]

great stuff so far. makes up for the dreary on earlier on. italy out in the group stages?!

i hope not, they're my team in the work sweepstakes

 

[Diamond]

If I was an Italian fan, I'd be seething right now. Fair enough the Dutch played well but the Italians were pretty good too and got some appalling decisions going against them.

Holland v Germany final please. That'd be tasty, bit of history with both teams playing fast, attractive, technical counter-attacking football.

 

[Red O]

Holland got lucky with the first goal, but before that they had outplayed Italy, I think. I don't think there's any question that the better team won tonight. The Dutch look like real contenders: all eleven played well tonight, including Ooijer and Boulahrouz who I never previously rated much. I particularly liked the two holding midfielders, they seem to be the fulcrum of the team: they protect the back four and give the front four the platform to play. Italy missed Cannavaro, and looked more solid once they took Materazzi off. I'll still back them to get the better of France.

 

[Woollyredhat]

Did Rudd score that goal, or was it a two-play?

 

[Red O]

Don't know what a two-play is, but what happened was that Sneijder hit a shot from outside the box and van Nistelrooy touched it in when miles offside.

 

[Malamud]

Don't know what a two-play is, but what happened was that Sneijder hit a shot from outside the box and van Nistelrooy touched it in when miles offside.

Because of an Italian player, on the ground behind the goal-line, but not out of the game, the goal was technically not offside.

 

[poului]

t79l['

Great game, Italy were a bit unlucky but its obvious these two are going through from this group.

 

[Red O]

Because of an Italian player, on the ground behind the goal-line, but not out of the game, the goal was technically not offside.

One of the tournament officials is saying the same thing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/euro_2008/7363339.stm. But Panucci surely was out of the game: he was lying injured by the advertsing boards and not moving?

 

[The Boy]

One of the tournament officials is saying the same thing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/euro_2008/7363339.stm. So Panucci was playing him onside even though he wasn't on the pitch?

Graham Poll was on the radio after the game saying that there was an italian player off teh field but playing Ruud onside.

At least I think that's what he said, I was atwork and pretending to do work

 

[Red O]

But Panucci wasn't active, he was lying injured.

 

[Woollyredhat]

Don't know what a two-play is, but what happened was that Sneijder hit a shot from outside the box and van Nistelrooy touched it in when miles offside.

Oh right. I meant like a two piece, with two players being involved. I thought it was Van Nistelrooy who took the long shot and it went into the net.

Edit: Did you hear the official's explanation? Wouldn't sit to well in water if it had really mattered. Unless it comes down to goal difference of course, but would it be too late to appeal by then?

 

[Diamond]

What a bizarre rule. Did Panucci crawl/walk off the pitch or had he just slid into touch of his own momentum? Because if it's the latter, it's very difficult to see the rationale for the rule.

 

[Lord Camomile]

IIRC he went up for a header with V.Nistelrooy and Kuyt, sending him and the other Dutch bloke off the pitch. Then he just lay there while the Dutch scored

Edit: nope it was Kuyt and Buffon, the Italian keeper who went up for the ball.

 

[Red O]

You can see the goals on the BBC link above: Panucci was clattered by his own keeper and was lying unmoving off the pitch. Personally, I'm double confused: I always thought that if you were off the pitch you were considered out of the game, at least for attacking players, and so I guess I've assumed the same for defenders too. I don't know if this rule has been recently changed or if I've just had it arse-backwards all these years. Secondly, even if Panucci can technically play van Nistelrooy onside in that position, surely the fact that he's injured means he can't be considered active?

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

It's total B.S.

I'm glad the Dutch won, but that is horseshit. You can't count a player who is out injured as in the game.

 

[kained&able]

I think its one of those you need permission from the refs to leave or enter the pitch type jobblers.

dave

 

[belboid]

it's been the rule for a couple of years at least that unless the ref explicitly says you may leave the pitch, you are counted as on it. The rationale is simple, and very reasonable - to stop someone 'stepping off' the pitch, or staying off it if you slid there, to put someone offside.

In this case, the ref seems to have gone with the absolute letter of the law, as chappy seemed to be genuinely injured, rather than playing at it (tho he was back up and in the game pretty quickly afterwards), so most refs would say he wasn't in play. But, technically, he was.

And, fuck it, even horse-face deserved that one, cracker of a game.

e2a: the beeb report - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/euro_2008/7445476.stm - makes it sound like blokey would have been considered out of the game if a dutch player had injured him, but as it was one of his own, its tough titty.

 

[Lord Camomile]

even if Panucci can technically play van Nistelrooy onside in that position, surely the fact that he's injured means he can't be considered active?

I think this is really the only truly contentious issue when all's said and done. It may seem like a bit of a stupid rule in this instance, but generally I think it actually kinda makes sense, and so in the heat of 'game conditions' the linesman made the correct call.

If he could actually see Panucci from where he was

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Do you think Van Nistelrooy positioned himself on the basis of the rule, or do you think he just got lucky?

 

[belboid]

pure dumb luck