I see some people are still trying to make hay over whether Ruud Van Nistelrooy's strike should have counted in The Netherlands win over Italy Monday at Euro 2008.

Apparently there is no end of a lesson in some quarters. The decision was made. It has been explained by the UEFA refereeing hierarchy, and let's just move on.

When the explanation was made it was noted as a somewhat unusual situation and one for which most  observers, including the players, didn't understand the rule.

I count myself in this number. When I first saw the goal I thought it was onside (and by the way, onside and offside are ALWAYS singular, never offsides or onsides - just a pet peeve, sorry) because of the Italian defender behind the goal line. 

Then ESPN's guest commentator Andy Gray (and what a treat it has been to hear him working these American telecasts - great idea by somebody) told me it shouldn't count and I was immediately persuaded that I had been wrong. At halftime, ESPN's studio commentators had a comical and somewhat mystical discussion about it and it was quickly clear nobody in there quite knew what the ruling should be.

In the end we got the official ruling and as I say, we should just count it as a learning experience.

That the goal was ONside and should be counted as a matter of common sense, because you have to distinguish between a player leaving the field under the referee's direction and a player being bundled off or simply running out while chasing a ball or to avoid a challenge or whatever. Unless we want a player having to ask permission of the referee to come back every time one of those things happens, then you can't just discount a player as part of the defense simply because he crosses the end-line. 

After that, it's just a matter of admitting that we all can still learn things about this wonderful game. 

It was a goal.

---

Go Back

Delicious

Digg

Facebook

StumbleUpon