Last nights result says enough??
:d

1) the goal was correct. whereas an offensive player could not gain from being off the field, out of play (there is already a “passive offsides” rule), a defensive player could gain from it by being sneaky and drawing everything from corner kicks to free kicks offside simply by stepping off the field. thus, Panucci was still active; the ref did not let him or make him leave the field of play. and i’m sure if Panucci had thought he could have intervened against Nistleroy, he would have simply stood up and done just that. if that happened, we would hear no uproar about how Panucci illegally stepped back onto the field (remember: the ref did not let or make him leave the field of play and was thus still involved). in the name of the most important “fair play” law in the good book (NOT the bible), the play should stand.

2) people have seemed to forget that later in the game, Van Persie would have been through leaving the closest Italy defender 15 meters back had it not been wrongfully flagged by the linesman. thus, it all ended up right in the end either way you argue.[/quote]
There is one flaw in your logic, and this is what Dutch fans don’t seem to compehend. You keep saying that the rule is there to prevent defenders from simply “stepping off the field.” I completely agree with you, however, Panucci did not “step off the field,” he was knocked off. The rule includes the word “deliberate” for a reason. If the defender is off the field not of his own accord, than he cannot be expected to assist in defense and therefore cannot be considered “active.” This is the case with Panucci. He does not fit into the required description of “deliberately” off the field for a goal to be upheld, and as such, the goal should have been disallowed.

In any case, it doesn’t matter now. I would encourage everyone to stop focusing on this one call and worry about the upcoming games instead.[/quote]

i understand your interpretation of “deliberate,” but his own teamate knocked him out which i think has to be considered (and the team was punished for his poor play). second, play can continue (and does) if the player is only slightly injured. you can’t tell me Panucci had a concusion or something. moreover, if he was officially injured, the referee would have had to let him re-enter the field once play had restarted (from the ensuing kick-off). really, play couldn’t stop if a defense just decides to stop playing defense and thus became innactive. that would be ridiculous.

again, i think the “fair play” rule is most important. we can’t penalise the attacking team for the mistake of the defending goalkepper and the defender.[/quote]

The defender could have also been faking an injury just to let the referee give Italy a freekick, which he didn’t give. This means that the defender is considered in play by the referee, whether he is inside or outside the lines. Because if he was on the ground on the inside of the lines on the goalside of van Nistelrooy, it also wouldn’t have been offside. So the interpretation of the situation by the referee plays a role and i think it was the good decision. Italians always fake like this to clear present danger :p Panucci was never really that hurt, he just walked on after the situation was done. And don’t forget Buffon(!) hit Panucci, not a Dutch player. So why stop the play for that anyway