This wasn't a Dutch victory without luck or aid in the form of missing Italian players (Cannavaro, Nesta, Maldini, Totti, Iaquinta), but they did play well. Although, you've gotta consider that there was no Robben, Babel or MOSTLY Van Persie. Van Persie still managed to turn a few defenders inside out.
We'll have to see how they do first. If they somehow won the group, we'd be able to discuss them possibly winning it.
I think they could beat Romania, France is their next big hurdle.
I thought Van Nistelrooy's good was OK when I saw it.. looks like a player is only inactive when off the pitch if the ref sends him from it for treatment.
they attempted to explain it yesterday on our show of Euro 2008. At first the head of our refereeing bond stated it was clearly undoubedly offside because the italian defender was placed beyond his will out of the field and was not able anymore to continue to participate in the game.
That's a clear point in my opinion. The crap that, eventhough he was pushed offside and was injured (or claimed to be), he is still considered to be onside is pathetic. I reek it's a coverup so the referee doesn't get humiliated for making such a huge mistake.
__________________ Kyuzo: Don't you see? A real sword will kill you. Mr. Earl Brooks: If I were here to kill you, you would already be dead. Mercedes: My mother told me to be wary of Fauns. Mr. Le Chiffre: No, I believe in a reasonable rate of return. James Bond: Now the whole world will know you died while you were scratching my balls!
Considering how the Italians like to gain unfair advantage lying down I think rough justice.
Both teams played well though imo, Italy also had some chances, and wfrom what I saw of the boring France v Romania game they still can go through.
The second goal from W. Sneijder has to be in the running for goal of the tournament, brillinat !! how he managed to volley the ball from that angle is beyond me.
Well lets be fare.. he was pushed there not by a Netherlands player but by his own goalkeeper. He just fell over and stayed down, he wasn't injured because he carried on playing with no problem. If he wanted to he COULD have got back onto his feet and come right back onto the field without the ref having to wave him on like they do when a player goes off for treatment. I think unless he is out of the game by injury and the ref has made him leave the field for treatment he is still part of the game and therefore has to be counted when looking at offside decisions.
My first thought when I saw it was that the goal should stand, then I saw it again and thought he may have been offside. But looking at it again I think the linesman was right to not give offside and let the goal stand.
hollands second and third goals were nice to watch, especially the second. good to see a decent match at last. i've heard the other games have been pretty dire this far.
Not end of story at all really, in fact it was an onside goal. If the Italians keep lying down like friggin babys everytime someone, even thier own goaly´ touches them then thats their problem.
The ref followed the ruls by the book, therefore it was a valid goal. Not the refs fault but the rule makers.
so because they have the name of making schwalbes, the goal is tough luck for them? That's an insane way of thinking
look, basic fact is that the head of our refereeing bond phoned in, said he was 200% sure it was an offside goal. I trust that guy much more about decisions than the UEFA. Why? Because Jeurissen has nothing to win or to lose by saying the truth; he's neutral in this. The UEFA is far from it: they just have to say it's onside because on this tournament the 12 best referees of Europe are participating. If one of those 12 makes a freakingly huge error (just like now) it shows the referees aren't top at all.
Another thing to think about : there was this action a year or two ago in our league: there was a corner and one of the guys (Mbark Boussouffa of Anderlecht) jumped behind the line to set up the off-side trap. They explained he should know that that was wrong since he willingly stepped out hte playing field and that he still is considered to be onside. (I don't like this rule at all but I see logic in this)
Here you have a guy that gets hit by his keeper (and yes he gets hit) AND he gets thrown (not even pushed, but literally thrown) out of the field... it's only logical you lie down to recover after having been through that! How the hell can you be onside at that point?
Guess a new tactic in Germany or other countries were they are very physical in their play: just kick the defenders off the field, make sure they're out for a few seconds and just get your chance, they're online after all.
BTW, got a question: they're also saying that it was still in the same action... when does an action exactly end? 'cause if I remember correctly the Italians kicked the ball away and then it got dropped into the feet of a Dutchmen who gave the assist. So, why didn't they stop one action at the Italian kicking the ball away and a new one when the assist was given?
EDIT: they make a distinction between volontary leaving the field and those not leaving volontary
They're just screwing up their own defence. Come on! Panucci didn't leave volontary! He gets hit and thrown out, that's not volontary leaving the field.
Furthermore... a player has to ask permission to leave the field according to their rules. So; shouldn't they give Panucci yellow for leaving the field without permission? Did he get back on the field with permission of the referee? Otherwise, strictly speaking he should have received his second yellow card...
__________________ Kyuzo: Don't you see? A real sword will kill you. Mr. Earl Brooks: If I were here to kill you, you would already be dead. Mercedes: My mother told me to be wary of Fauns. Mr. Le Chiffre: No, I believe in a reasonable rate of return. James Bond: Now the whole world will know you died while you were scratching my balls!
Last edited by Jovan on Jun 10th, 2008 at 06:07 PM
KMC Community Forums
Jun 9th, 2008 09:56 PM
