出動到智多星 ? - 勁 !!
有沒有結論不是問題，最重要的是
腦根在轉 - good.
LAW 11 Offside
版主: 版面管理員
75 篇文章
• 第 2 頁 (共 5 頁) • 1，2，3，4，5
由 Dennis Yip » 08年6月10日10:34 週二
100% agree! :smt003
*********************************
奧運精神 : 講求團結和和平，講求無私、公平、和諧、尊嚴和夥伴關係
奧運精神 : 講求團結和和平，講求無私、公平、和諧、尊嚴和夥伴關係
-
Dennis Yip - 文章: 2062
- 註冊時間: 03年11月6日09:23 週四
由 yeah09 » 08年6月11日13:37 週三
Not offside
UEFA General Secretary David Taylor was reacting to claims from some quarters that Van Nistelrooy was standing in an offside position when he scored the first of the Netherlands ' goals in their 3-0 win. "I would like to take the opportunity to explain and emphasise that the goal was correctly awarded by the referee team," he said. "I think there's a lack of understanding among the general football public, and I think it's understandable because this was an unusual situation. The player was not offside, because, in addition to the Italian goalkeeper, there was another Italian player in front of the goalscorer. Even though that other Italian player at the time had actually fallen off the pitch, his position was still relevant for the purposes of the offside law."
Still involved
The starting point, said Mr. Taylor, is the Laws of the Game – Law 11 – which deals with offside, and whereby a player is in an offside position if he is nearer to his opponents' goal-line than both the ball and the second last opponent. "There need to be two defenders involved," the UEFA General Secretary said. "If you think back to the situation, the first is the goalkeeper, and the second is the defender who, because of his momentum, actually had left the field of play. But this defender was still deemed to be part of the game. Therefore he is taken into consideration as one of the last two opponents. As a result, Ruud Van Nistelrooy was not nearer to the opponents' goal than the second last defender and, therefore, could not be in an offside position.
Rare incident
"This is a widely-known interpretation of the offside law amongst referees that is not generally known by the wider football public," he continued. "Incidents like this are very unusual – although I'm informed that there was an incident like this about a month ago in a Swiss Super League match between FC Sion and FC Basel 1893. [It was] initially suggested that this [goal] was a mistake by the referee in terms of the offside law – the commentator later apologised publicly, as he didn't realise that this was the correct application of the law. "
Law applied
Mr Taylor concluded: "So let's be clear – the referees' team applied the law in the correct manner.
If we did not have this interpretation of the player being off the pitch, then what could happen is that the defending team could use the tactic of stepping off the pitch deliberately to play players offside, and that clearly is unacceptable. The most simple and practical interpretation of the law in this instance is the one that is adopted by referees throughout the world – that is that unless you have permission from the referee to be off the pitch, you are deemed to be on it and deemed to be part of the game. That is why the Italian defender, even though his momentum had taken him off the pitch, was still deemed to be part of the game, and therefore the attacking player put the ball into the net, and it was a valid goal. The law in this place was applied absolutely correctly."
UEFA General Secretary David Taylor was reacting to claims from some quarters that Van Nistelrooy was standing in an offside position when he scored the first of the Netherlands ' goals in their 3-0 win. "I would like to take the opportunity to explain and emphasise that the goal was correctly awarded by the referee team," he said. "I think there's a lack of understanding among the general football public, and I think it's understandable because this was an unusual situation. The player was not offside, because, in addition to the Italian goalkeeper, there was another Italian player in front of the goalscorer. Even though that other Italian player at the time had actually fallen off the pitch, his position was still relevant for the purposes of the offside law."
Still involved
The starting point, said Mr. Taylor, is the Laws of the Game – Law 11 – which deals with offside, and whereby a player is in an offside position if he is nearer to his opponents' goal-line than both the ball and the second last opponent. "There need to be two defenders involved," the UEFA General Secretary said. "If you think back to the situation, the first is the goalkeeper, and the second is the defender who, because of his momentum, actually had left the field of play. But this defender was still deemed to be part of the game. Therefore he is taken into consideration as one of the last two opponents. As a result, Ruud Van Nistelrooy was not nearer to the opponents' goal than the second last defender and, therefore, could not be in an offside position.
Rare incident
"This is a widely-known interpretation of the offside law amongst referees that is not generally known by the wider football public," he continued. "Incidents like this are very unusual – although I'm informed that there was an incident like this about a month ago in a Swiss Super League match between FC Sion and FC Basel 1893. [It was] initially suggested that this [goal] was a mistake by the referee in terms of the offside law – the commentator later apologised publicly, as he didn't realise that this was the correct application of the law. "
Law applied
Mr Taylor concluded: "So let's be clear – the referees' team applied the law in the correct manner.
If we did not have this interpretation of the player being off the pitch, then what could happen is that the defending team could use the tactic of stepping off the pitch deliberately to play players offside, and that clearly is unacceptable. The most simple and practical interpretation of the law in this instance is the one that is adopted by referees throughout the world – that is that unless you have permission from the referee to be off the pitch, you are deemed to be on it and deemed to be part of the game. That is why the Italian defender, even though his momentum had taken him off the pitch, was still deemed to be part of the game, and therefore the attacking player put the ball into the net, and it was a valid goal. The law in this place was applied absolutely correctly."
人逢喜事精神爽……
还可以一直做着梦！
还可以一直做着梦！
-
yeah09 - 文章: 1547
- 註冊時間: 05年6月23日15:47 週四
- 來自: I LOVE THE GAME
由 cho cole » 08年6月11日16:00 週三
But this defender was still deemed to be part of the game. Therefore he is taken into consideration as one of the last two opponents. As a result, Ruud Van Nistelrooy was not nearer to the opponents' goal than the second last defender and, therefore, could not be in an offside position.
Good point
?????
Good case sample
How about the second moment
Good point
?????
Good case sample
How about the second moment
cho cole
Keep strong never give up
Keep strong never give up
-
cho cole - 文章: 26158
- 註冊時間: 03年11月5日18:58 週三
- 來自: HKFRA
由 yeah09 » 08年6月11日16:59 週三
when the DFK kicked, the time run...
1-GK and defender have a charge.
2-the ball rebound to the out field player( out of the BOX).
3-he shoot the ball.
4-van scored.
when is the second moment(phrase)?
let's show it:
from 1- not offise; 2-no; 3-no; 4?
ok, see 3-4:
you think the moment 2 is a point (timeline), and 3-4 is another;
but, from 1-4, the defend team always keep 2 players(GK and a defender)
even when he lay on the pitch behind the goalline.
yes, in early time I think the case should be "offside"; until last night, when we were discuss about a player who may leave the pitch deliberately, we both agree that the case should be a good goal, and the defender also would be cautioned. that being the case, the defender who leave the pitch not deliberately, should also have a "fair opportunity"--not offside,but not received a yellow card.
其实，在不久前，陆俊就曾在电视上讲过这样一个案例，并认为不越位；当时我并不认同。直到说起如果一名队员是故意离开比赛场地球门线这一案例，我才想到;
法律不能鉴别一个人的故意或无意，他只能依据现象来判定；
法律的自由裁量能给予心理动机作辨析。
1-GK and defender have a charge.
2-the ball rebound to the out field player( out of the BOX).
3-he shoot the ball.
4-van scored.
when is the second moment(phrase)?
let's show it:
from 1- not offise; 2-no; 3-no; 4?
ok, see 3-4:
you think the moment 2 is a point (timeline), and 3-4 is another;
but, from 1-4, the defend team always keep 2 players(GK and a defender)
even when he lay on the pitch behind the goalline.
yes, in early time I think the case should be "offside"; until last night, when we were discuss about a player who may leave the pitch deliberately, we both agree that the case should be a good goal, and the defender also would be cautioned. that being the case, the defender who leave the pitch not deliberately, should also have a "fair opportunity"--not offside,but not received a yellow card.
其实，在不久前，陆俊就曾在电视上讲过这样一个案例，并认为不越位；当时我并不认同。直到说起如果一名队员是故意离开比赛场地球门线这一案例，我才想到;
法律不能鉴别一个人的故意或无意，他只能依据现象来判定；
法律的自由裁量能给予心理动机作辨析。
人逢喜事精神爽……
还可以一直做着梦！
还可以一直做着梦！
-
yeah09 - 文章: 1547
- 註冊時間: 05年6月23日15:47 週四
- 來自: I LOVE THE GAME
75 篇文章
• 第 2 頁 (共 5 頁) • 1，2，3，4，5
誰在線上
正在瀏覽這個版面的使用者：沒有註冊會員 和 16 位訪客