Footytube.com - Latest Comments in Netherlands v Italy

Re: Netherlands v Italy

amitbopy — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:00:39 -0000

:):(:d:">:((:d/:x**==(~~)x(:@)8-x8-x(%):-ho->l-):-h:|>-):-b:-b%%-^:)^

Re: Netherlands v Italy

Renee — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 08:37:04 -0000

Whether the goal was offside or onside (I think it was on) it was given and nothing else matters. I think the Dutch played great against both Italy and France and I think they stand a good chance of winning the championship. But who knows what'll happen; isn't that the beauty of football?

Re: Netherlands v Italy

Seb — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:28:01 -0000

[quote comment="19121"]I think u guys should chilled its still only the first game for both sides....and the offside situation i think would have demoralized the italians...however i think its debate able about that.... but it seems unfair if the player is out of the field lying down in this case for quite some time that he is counted as in play......i guess its just down to luck sometimes....but anyways....lets see the dutch against the french.....wonder if they can do the same...then only i would say they deserve the credit...still a long way to go[/quote]

Last nights result says enough??
:d

Re: Netherlands v Italy

Shell — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 04:04:34 -0000

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 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

Re: Netherlands v Italy

Shell — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 04:03:02 -0000

[quote comment="19316"][quote comment="19314"][quote comment="19305"]agung: don't do that please.

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

Re: Netherlands v Italy

ooo no — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:04:25 -0000

carce suck hairy balls

Re: Netherlands v Italy

Mighty Red — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:23:59 -0000

:d/ My teams before the Euro 2008 started were Holland and Portugal. I hope they both make it to the Final and if so, then it has to be Holland to win. Van the Man U R der sar, the BEST Goalkeeper by far!! Glory Glory Man UTD. Come on Holland Kick ass!!!

Re: Netherlands v Italy

Patrick — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:17:51 -0000

OK, this is the last one. let's say the defender was knocked out past the line by his keeper and was just on the edge of the line, just off the field. the ball comes flying in towards the striker who's about to deflect it into the goal. BUT, the seemingly injured defender sees this and lurches toward the forward, swinging his leg and is able, while off the field, to just get a touch on the ball as the striker hits it to stop the goal... what do we do? do we penalise the defender for coming back onto the pitch without the official's consent? no. he was active the whole time, no offside, no foul play. we can't penalise one side and not the other.

Re: Netherlands v Italy

Patrick — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:11:40 -0000

[quote comment="19314"][quote comment="19305"]agung: don't do that please.

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.

Re: Netherlands v Italy

rvg — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:25:34 -0000

[quote comment="19305"]agung: don't do that please.

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.

Re: Netherlands v Italy

Carce — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:11:27 -0000

Ok, Holland deserved to win no doubt.
Italy played one of the worst match ever in our history.
But we played football against Holland; we tried to win and we've done our match. Why I have to read so many bad comments on Italy ? Why don't you mention teams like Greece (was it footbal or what against Sweden???) or France-Romania and 80% of the matches played during this tournament?

Why I have lo listen again this boring refrain about our cheating football?

We won WC2006 playing with 3 attackers. During the semi against Germany Lippi put inside Iaquinta, Del Piero, Gilardino and Toni (4 attackers). Isn't enough?

Against Holland we played with Toni, DiNatale and Camoranesi as foward in a 4-3-3.

So stop saying bullshit about Italian Football if you want us to cease reply remembering we are the World Champion

Matteo, ITALY

Re: Netherlands v Italy

Patrick — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:17:14 -0000

agung: don't do that please.

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.

Re: Netherlands v Italy

agung — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:48:41 -0000

and today... Ronaldo scored!!!
portugal will goes to the final... :d/

Re: Netherlands v Italy

guz — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:27:18 -0000

[quote comment="19290"]
go learn the rules of football idiot, if hes out of the field (past that white line you see behind the goalie, then its considered offside unless the ref thinks he went outside the line deliberately, which he didnt cuz he was pushed out there by Buffon) so the first goal WAS OFFSIDE which changed the outcome of the match cuz the other 2 goals were very fast counter attacks since italy really needed to score...[/quote]

It's easy to say others idiot while we don't want to learn and open our mind. FYI, check this! Van Nistelrooy’s goal opinion from President of Italian
Referee Association:

http://goal.com/en/Articolo.aspx?ContenutoId=72...

Re: Netherlands v Italy

Hesham — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:57:10 -0000

[quote comment="19087"]By the way, FYI, v Nistelrooy was not offsides.
A FIFA rule indicates that if a player (pannucci) goes out of bounds, he is still an active player, and therefore would still be considered in play. The goal was legal. Right call. Check it again, Pannucci lies down out of bounds keeping van nistelrooy onside.[/quote]

go learn the rules of football idiot, if hes out of the field (past that white line you see behind the goalie, then its considered offside unless the ref thinks he went outside the line deliberately, which he didnt cuz he was pushed out there by Buffon) so the first goal WAS OFFSIDE which changed the outcome of the match cuz the other 2 goals were very fast counter attacks since italy really needed to score...

Re: Netherlands v Italy

Roberto — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:42:27 -0000

As a Dutch -Italian its always difficult to choose a side.
This time (after 30 years) Holland was better but they had a little bit of help with the 1ste goal,most of the referees will dissalow it.
2 half italy was playing a bit better but damage was already done.
We could say that Holland scored 2 typical Italian counter goals .
My predictions Italy is not out yet and If Holland always scores first it will be difficult to beat them because they can keep the ball good however if they come behind it will be difficult for them.

Re: Netherlands v Italy

Ali — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:30:55 -0000

Further more, you Italians need to stop diving like you've been shot in the ass with a sniper. Its like watching Drogba play.

Re: Netherlands v Italy

Ali — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:28:50 -0000

Are you shizzling me Charzzard? Toni over-rated? Do you know how many goals he scored in his first season with Bayern Munich. Charz, you obviously need to take your own advice and not comment on what you obviously have no clue about.

I'm part dutch and man was i proud to see Holland play total football again; Its been so long since I have seen such a great performance.

On the offside, for me its offside and Ruud Van Nistelrooy's expression tells me so, he thought it was offside. The referee has made a mistake judging Ruud to be inline with the last 2 defenders and then has used pannucci as an escape goat.

In my opinion Italy won the world cup by luck, if Zidane wasn't sent off France would have won. Don't even think for a second Italy would have won with him as you couldn't break France down for most of the match and had to revert to winning on penalties.
The reason your hated so much: You never cease to stop yelling how amazing Italy are just because they won the world cup.

Re: Netherlands v Italy

strudelnase — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:43:17 -0000

[quote comment="19231"][quote comment="19079"]go dutch go.. i am waiting for dutch to take revenge on portugal this time.[/quote]
in your dreams!
Portugal is going to, once again, kick some Dutch ass out of the tournament. I hope we play again Greece in the final match - REVENGE.
But after the beating they took against Sweden there's not much chance that happens.[/quote]

If the ref is better and both teams would play like they played this week,,,, I think Holland would win by miles, Turkey didn't play well and Portugal won only by 2-0, The world champions played good but holland was 3 times better, so please STFU

Re: Netherlands v Italy

Step — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:42:24 -0000

I really can't understand the hate against Italy

Netherlands won, and played better football than Italy indeed.But this doesn't mean they now are the world champions, because we still are the best:d/

The problem of our team is DONADONI, noone has mentioned him...

Ambrosini was palying instead of DeRossi:o Camoranesi played as a FORWARD:((
And BARZAGLI DOES REALLY SUCK! I can defend better than him ( and i'm not joking:( )

We want Lippi back!!Donadoni plz go away!

Re: Netherlands v Italy

strudelnase — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:40:04 -0000

[quote comment="19197"]http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=gC9C_bBkOoQ

this is ITALY[/quote]

More like Portugal I believe, If you look back at wc2006 against Netherlands, And if you look at Ronaldo playing, But I like the way he move his feet

Re: Netherlands v Italy

WHU — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:26:58 -0000

FUCK OFF NETHERLANDS LUCKY SOBs

kthnxbai

Re: Netherlands v Italy

Bobbymith — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:36:05 -0000

[quote comment="19252"]
Because he didn't run out of play and decided to stay out of play... he was injured, on the floor and was unable to stand. Therefore, he was OUT OF PLAY.[/quote]

When a player goes down due to injury, play can continue and usually does if it's in a crucial area.

If the play had to be stopped due to him being injured, the referee would have blown the whistle when he was originally "injured."

Re: Netherlands v Italy

rvg — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:49:08 -0000

[quote comment="19250"]hahahahaha Italy got beaten by the truth (it was onside). Italy cheated to win the WC and should have their title taken away. Italy = CHEATILY and cant hang in Europe history is on my side :d;)[/quote]
Please tell me how Italy "cheated." The only call you can question is the PK against Australia and if you look closely, you would see that the Aussie's arm had made contact with Grosso's leg. The Aussie made no contact with the ball and brought Grosso down. That is a PK. Now, Materazzi was sent off in that same game after an offense that did not deserve a red card. In the final, Malouda dived and got a PK for it. I don't understand how anyone can claim that Italy cheated. You don't want to see the truth because you let your bias affect your judgement. Get over the fact that you lost in the World Cup and accept that Italy won the title fair and square. Stop being a bad sport, that isn't what football is about.

Re: Netherlands v Italy

MilanFan — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:07:35 -0000

[quote comment="19247"]About the rule:

If "out of play means out of play".... what happens when a player is dribbling down the line and steps outside?

Clearly if "out of play means out of play"... he CANNOT touch the ball again OR come back onto the field until the referee allows him to come back in.

Could we then just have our defenders all jump outside the line, to keep the opposition offsides?

But wait... that would ruin all arguments against this goal!

He tumbled outside of the field, by his own player. Nothing dirty went on, he wasn't injured.

Goal is a goal and Ruud dominates again. :)[/quote]

Because he didn't run out of play and decided to stay out of play... he was injured, on the floor and was unable to stand. Therefore, he was OUT OF PLAY.