Top Stories

Morning Ticker: UEFA backs Dutch offside no-call, Riquelme gets call-up and Mexican keeper arrested


Good morning all. It was a thrilling Monday in the soccer world, with Italy’s Euro collapse against the Netherlands dominating the headlines. Here are some other stories from Monday as well as this morning, including an explanation on the Dutch team’s controversial first goal in its 3-0 win.

UEFA clarifies offside ruling

When Ruud van Nistelrooy scored the Netherlands’ first goal against Italy, he looked completely offside at first glance, but what wasn’t clear to most observers was the fact that Italy defender Christian Panucci was laying on the ground out of bounds, next to the Italy goal, which played van Nistelrooy onside.

The rule is a clear one, and let’s face it folks, the Dutch were always going to beat Italy, with or without that first goal.

Riquelme and Veron get Argentina calls

Juan Riquelme and Juan Veron were called up by Argentina for its upcoming World Cup qualifiers against Ecuador and Brazil.

Argentina manager Alfio Basile, dogged by Riquelme questions all week during Argentina’s tour of the United States, called up Riquelme and stated that the Boca Juniors playmaker is still a first-choice national team player.

Mexican GK arrested in Chicago

Mexican national team goalkeeper Oswaldo Sanchez posted a shutout on Sunday night in Chicago in Mexico’s 4-0 win against Peru and apparently his post-win celebration got a little out of control.

Sanchez was arrested early Monday morning when he refused to leave his Chicago hotel after being asked to leave following noise complaints. He was charged with criminal trespass and resisting arrest, both misdemeanors, and must return to Chicago in July for a court date.

Now I’m not a conspiracy theorist but Sanchez’s arrest came about nine hours after Sanchez had a run-in with Chicago Tribune soccer writer Luis Arroyave. Sanchez apparently made fun of Arroyave’s less than perfect Spanish, which angered Arroyave. Next thing you know, Sanchez is in jail. Coincidence? (for those of you slow to catch on, I’m kidding).


  1. Goal?

    Sure, the referee has given it, so it was a goal!

    Was it a goal by the current FIFA Laws of the game? Definitely NOT!

    All of you who have quotted “rules”, please make sure to check the book! There is one online on FIFA’s site.

    If Pannucci had “left” the field of play without the referee’s permission he should have been cautioned. He was not! More so, it was quite obvious that Panucci did not leave the field of play intentionally. He was knocked by his goalkeeper.

    I am Romanian and don’t care for the outcome of that game, however as an official referee I am astounded by UEFA’s comments. I think that FIFA must take some action here to set Law 11 right such that it is both manageable by the assistant referees and completely unambiguous, for everyone’s sake.

  2. Aquaman:

    To call 11.11 “a law” is not accurate. It’s an interpretation of the Laws put out by the USSF. Nowhere in the “FIFA Laws of the Game” will you see the number “11.11” or the ruling that has been posted.

    That’s what has led to a lot of confusion and much of the arguing. The assistant referee made a fantastic call to not rule offside. It’d be pretty sweet if we were able to find something from FIFA that tells us what all the rules are…not just some.

  3. JMR – good work on actually reading the article. Apparently you skipped the part where the interviewer DID talk to the referee and the REFEREE “did say his first job was to determine if Ricken stayed off the field longer than he had to after his slide-tackle carried him off the field of play”. So in the Dortmound case, we have unintentional momentum and a waiting to return to the field of play by Ricken. Verdict – onside, goal stands.

    Pannuci collides with his keeper and falls to the ground (unintentional momentum and collision). Instead of getting up Panucci lays on the ground hoping for a stoppage of play (waiting to return to field of play). Because the referee correctly determines there is no serious injury, and thus no need for a stoppage of play, and thus no reason for Panucci to be laying on the ground, play continues. Ruud scores, Panucci jumps up to complain proving the point that he was uninjured and therefore should have been getting back onto the field of play.

    It is Panucci’s fault that instead of playing the game, he decided to try and get a stoppage of play by laying on the ground feigning injury.


Leave a Comment