Italy's reffing hell

Ruud van Nistelrooy's opening goal last night was obviously a crucial factor in Holland's victory. And it should never have stood, because the striker was a yard offside, right? Wrong, says one Gerhard Kapl.

A big cheese in Austrian refereeing circles - he is their Keith Hackett - Kapl said that the decision to allow the goal was correct because Van Nistelrooy had been played onside by Christian Panucci – even though the Italy defender was off the pitch next to the goal.

There is a clause in the Laws of the Game that deals with this sort of thing: “If a defending player steps behind his own goal line in order to place an opponent in an offside position, the referee shall allow play to continue and caution the defender for deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission when the ball is next out of play.”

It's presumably this that Gerhard is using as justification for the referee's decision to allow the goal. Two problems, though: one, Panucci wasn't cautioned. And two, he was off the pitch because the goalkeeper, Gianluigi Buffon, punched him in the head as they attempted to clear the ball just before the goal. As van Nistelrooy tapped in, Panucci was lying on his back with his head in his hands, moaning the Italian equivalent of "ow!" Is Gerhard really suggesting that the Italians, legendarily cunning defenders though they be, faked an injury to one of their men in order to play Holland offside? That would be some catenaccio all right.

Comments

[Roy]

Either it was offside or not. The Dutch played better than the Italians and it was a matter of time when we will score the first goal.

The Italian were fortune that Ruud van Nistelrooij didn't fall. Two times the referee blow a dutch attack off for offside while the player got straight to the goal.

There wwas no chance for the Italians what so ever.