We've completed the first round of Group Stage matches at EURO 2008, and while numerous stories have developed -- the subpar performances by France and Italy, the rise of David Villa, the hard luck of the hosts, etc. -- the biggest topic of conversation continues to be Ruud van Nistelrooy's opening goal against Italy, and whether he was offside or not. Even after replays confirmed that van Nistelrooy onside, ESPN's Julie Foudy and Tommy Smyth were still debating it.This is where ESPN should borrow a page from the NFL Network's playbook. When ever a questionable play happens in that league, NFL Network brings out Mike Pereira, the league's head of officiating, to break down plays and point to the spot in the rulebook that justified the referee's call.
That's what UEFA needed here -- someone to go on camera and point out why Ruud's goal way legal. As Jarrett Campbell of Triangle Soccer Fanatics points out, the laws of the game are pretty clear:
"A defender who leaves the field during the course of play and does not immediately return must still be considered in determining where the second to last defender is for the purpose of judging which attackers are in an offside position. Such a defender is considered to be on the touch line or goal line closest to his or her off-field position. A defender who leaves the field with the referee's permission (and who thus requires the referee's permission to return) is not included in determining offside position."
Italian defender Christian Panucci was knocked off the play by his goalkeeper, Gianluigi Buffon, but he did not leave the field with the referee's permission. Thus, he was still part of the play and made everyone onside. Goal stands. End of discussion.
Except that it's not the end of the discussion. Clearly, UEFA needs someone in charge of officiating to go on camera and explain this to everyone -- especially Julie Foudy. Some of the venom being spewed at her on satellite radio might be excessive, but as someone who played women's soccer at its highest level, Foudy really should have understood this.
By the way, I hope ESPN keeps putting Andy Gray and Tommy Smyth in the studio together, because at some point, those two are going to get into a fistfight. And that would be awesome.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-11-2008 @ 10:43AM
yellow said...
no... ESPN needs to just read the scores and move on. Americans have no idea about the rules of soccer let alone analysis and debate... so pathetic.....
Reply
6-11-2008 @ 12:52PM
Jon said...
I admit I was only lightly watching ESPN's between-games coverage yesterday, but they did have a referee on-camera for the debate. (He wasn't part of UEFA - he said he was taking charge of a stateside match today - but he was a fully qualified ref.)
Despite his perspective, they still debated the call, though. This is because Tommy Smyth is an ass of the highest order.
Reply
6-11-2008 @ 1:24PM
Been There said...
I am very embarrassed for the American commentators at ESPN as well as Andy Gray who I always respected. At least Tommy came back with a retraction of his original analyses. People in the Football world should know that if this call would have been the opposite, it would open a HUGE can of worms and open the door for defenders to feign injuries at the goal line and go off pitch. This would ruin the game. The call was so correct there's absolutely no arguing about it, especially since it is part of the US Federation bylaws and Julie Foudy, being American, should definitely apologise and retract her arguments. If she doesn't, her career is over IMO because she represents Americans yet cannot understand her own Soccer Federation's law. Shameful commentating on ESPN's part except for Tommy.
Reply
6-11-2008 @ 2:22PM
grapevinesooner said...
Technically, Pereira has a weekly segment Wednesday night's during the season.
Otherwise, I think you're right, David. In fact, I think every league ought to take a page out of the league's rulebook and make the director of officiating available on a weekly basis to discuss calls.
Especially the NBA, given the fact it's credibility's been called into question once again.
Reply