“According to reports, UEFA will defend the decision to disallow Luca Toni’s goal against Romania”
Reports from unnamed sources within UEFA suggested the official line would be that it was disallowed for Alessandro Del Piero’s offside position.

This was a tenuous explanation, as not only was Del Piero arguably not in an active position, he was also level with Codrea.

This was their line until:

“Referee Tom Henning Ovrebo has admitted he “made a mistake” in disallowing Luca Toni’s goal against Romania”
“There is nothing to discuss. I made a mistake on Toni’s goal and I said the same to the UEFA Commission,” confessed the Norwegian

Do people think this would have been allowed? If so then you are clearly of the opinion that Panucci is still active and able to re-enter the field of platy without requiring the refs permission and as such the goal was correctly allowed.

Whether he left by his own momentum or via a collision with his own team mate is irrelevant, the key point is he didn’t end up where he did via contact with a Dutch player.

I know full well that arguing about it won’t change anything. Hell, even if RVN had been allowed to stand 10 yards offside and score a goal in another play, the entire country would be calling for murder but we still wouldn’t be able to turn back time to change it.

Without *knowing* whether the player is injured or not, the linesman cannot reasonably decide in his favor.

There is no luxury of hindsight, and while we can argue all day whether he was still part of active play or not, I think the call made would have been made 90% of the time.

I can say that I wouldn’t have made the call, but it’s clear to see why the linesman did. Yes, they’re going to close ranks (just as you’re adamantly defending Italy’s right to have justice) – but at this point arguing any further won’t accomplish anything.

And above all, it’s poor form to criticise guests

2. Are there any other players nearer to the opponents goal line than the attacker and the ball?
Well the only other player to be counted is the Italian defender who was not actually on the field of play but had left due to his own momentum.

Wrong. I still can’t believe UEFA or anyone associated with refereeing is still refusing to call an orange an orange. Panucci didn’t leave due to his own momentum, he was knocked over by his own keeper.

Distorting the facts from the video is exactly why people have so many problems with RVN’s goal, and aren’t buying UEFA general secretary David Taylor’s explanation.

3. Is this player counted as being on the field of play at the time?
As he left the field of play of his own accord, after a clash with a team mate, the ball was still in play. He should be included as one of the last two defenders as he is deemed to be part of play and counted as a defender.

Part underlined is wrong again, see previous point.

4. What about players who leave the field deliberately to place a player in an offside position?
Technically speaking one could argue that the player has left the field deliberately and without the permission of the referee so therefore could be cautioned.

Finally something we can all agree on. Deliberately leaving the field in order to place an opponent offside shouldn’t be allowed.

5. Should we consider that the ball remained in play and was part of one phase of play?
Yes it is important to understand that as the Italian player left the field of play the ball was played back and then crossed to the Dutch striker. This is all one phase of play. If the ball had been played out to the corner and several passes made this then would determine another phase of play being entered into.

Finally starting to make sense.

The following is how I see it ultimately. As the events played out, the linesman had a split second to consider the following: had Panucci left the field deliberately (or due to his own momentum)? He decided he did, applied the rule to the letter, and didn’t the raise the flag for offside.

The only problem in all this? Panucci did not leave the field deliberately, was knocked over by his own keeper, and had no means, opportunity, or enough time to actively re-enter play, lying injured a good 6 yards away from the goal line. There is no way anyone on the playing field still considered him to be part of play, Ruud Van Nistelrooy included.

Bottom line: can the decision to allow the goal be justified according to the rules? Yes.
In hindsight and taking a close look at the events (Panucci clearly unintentionally exiting the field), was it the right decision? No.

However, I think that given the speed with which the incident took place, the decision given was correct. You could not tell, without checking with the physio’s report, whether Panucci had been injured or was taking an extra second to get up.

Even more, Mr Blanchard’s comment makes the above discussion irrelevant:

it is important to understand that as the Italian player left the field of play the ball was played back and then crossed to the Dutch striker. This is all one phase of play. If the ball had been played out to the corner and several passes made this then would determine another phase of play being entered into.

That is, Panucci going behind the goal is considered to be part of the same move that caused the goal. Realistically speaking Panucci would have little chance of getting back up and getting into an onside position in time (we can debate this all day, so I suggest you time the # of seconds between Panucci’s tumble and RVN’s tap-in and then start your counter-argument).

They close ranks, but they might have gotten it right this time.

There is a tendancy for UEFA, FIFA and refereeing organisations to close ranks when a poor decision has been made.

Holland fully deserved to win that game. They opened Italy up at will, whilst Italy were shotgun-shy in front of goal. However, RVN’s goal should not have stood.