Observation on their second goal.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Have to say, it was a dreadful decision by the ref and linesman and I'm astonished no-one picked it up.

Meyer was four yards offside when the ball was clipped up to Townsend. From that point on, the Rovers defender were never able to get goalside of him and he had a totally unchallenged finish.

He clearly and unquestionably gained an unfair advantage by being in an offside position. I'm astonished no-one has commented on that.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Second observation. Kevin Kilbane is stealing a wage.

He called it poor marking that we didn't track Meyer. That, after watching four replays showing Meyer 4 yards offside.

[Filo]

Have to say, it was a dreadful decision by the ref and linesman and I'm astonished no-one picked it up.

Meyer was four yards offside when the ball was clipped up to Townsend. From that point on, the Rovers defender were never able to get goalside of him and he had a totally unchallenged finish.

He clearly and unquestionably gained an unfair advantage by being in an offside position. I'm astonished no-one has commented on that.

Well I thought at the time he looked offside but thought I’ll have a look on TV later MOTD is on in a bit

[Nudga]

I think it's now called 2nd phase of play Billy??
What ever it is its b*llocks.

[Filo]

Second observation. Kevin Kilbane is stealing a wage.

He called it poor marking that we didn't track Meyer. That, after watching four replays showing Meyer 4 yards offside.

My lad said that Kilbane said we we poor

There can only be one explanation, he’s on drugs

[roversdude]

Even players let it go too, got to admit didn’t notice that Billy from just north of halfway in West Stand

[dickos1]

The rule is different though now ain’t it. Doesn’t matter if he was offside when it was played to Townsend it where he is when it’s played to him.
Plenty of goals scored nowadays where a player is offside when the ball is played to someone who then in turn plays it to the previously offside player.

It’s shite but it’s the current rule

[RoversAlias]

Yeah, Meyer was nowhere near the ball when it was sent forward to Townsend so he isn't offside. It was a different phase of the attack.

[rover-n-out]

For some reason Kevin Kilbane has never had a good word to say about rovers whenever he's commented on our games. Think it might stem from his playing career.

[BillyStubbsTears]

If that's the rule then it's absolutely bizarre. That is a stone cold example of a player gaining an utterly unfair advantage by choosing to be in a hugely offside position. Once he's taken up that position, the Rovers defender's have no chance whatsoever of getting goalside of him for the ball back across.

Calling the header from Townsend a second phase of the attack is ridiculous. It's all part of the same, 2 second move.

[Filo]

For some reason Kevin Kilbane has never had a good word to say about rovers whenever he's commented on our games. Think it might stem from his playing career.

Shite players are usually Bitter ex players

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yeah, Meyer was nowhere near the ball when it was sent forward to Townsend so he isn't offside. It was a different phase of the attack.

How is it a different phase? It's literally less than a second between the pass from Milivojevic and the header from Townsend. Meyer having taken up a grossly offside position for the first pass clearly gains an unfair advantage for the second one a second later. By no rational means can that be called a different phase.

Had Meyer run back to the other side of the defenders, then yes, I'd agree that the initial offside position gained him nothing. As it is, he has clearly gained an unfair advantage.

If that is the letter of the law, then the law is batshit, because it's grossly again at the spirit of the law.

[Nudga]

Have you noticed on free kicks around the edge of the box, strikers now stand in offside positions knowing that the free kick taker won't play it him in the first instance. He waits there for the next phase of play (when it comes off someone else, as long as he then is now onside)

[dickos1]

If the balls not played to them then they’re not offside.
Happens regularly,
Someone other week was laying down injured in box about 30 yards offside the ball was played to the winger who then crossed to the bloke who was 30 yards offside a few seconds earlier who then scored

[BillyStubbsTears]

Have you noticed on free kicks around the edge of the box, strikers now stand in offside positions knowing that the free kick taker won't play it him in the first instance. He waits there for the next phase of play (when it comes off someone else, as long as he then is now onside)

Yes Nudga but that is usually a very different situation. By the time the ball comes to the player who was originally stood offside, he's had defenders move past him. So he's not gained an advantage in the defenders by having originally been offside.

Meyer's positioning was so grossly offside, that the defenders had no chance whatsoever to get goalside of him. He wasn't offside when the ball came back across on the technicality that he was behind Townsend. But his positioning for the first pass gave him a grossly unfair advantage when the second ball came across.

As I say, if the law allows that then it's utterly unfit for purpose.

[rich1471]

The law on offside as it stands is crazy there is nithing us getting big john to stand on the 18 yard line play the ball down the line to wilks to use his pace , square it and score not offside as the ball when played never went to john

[VivaRovers]

BST, this has been the way the offside rule has been applied and interpreted for the best part of a decade.

It’s not about phases of play, but to be offside from a ball played forwards you have to either play the ball (from that pass or shot) or impede the goalkeeper’s sightline/movement.

Meyer may be beyond the last Rovers defender when the ball is played to Townsend, but he’s not offside at any point.

It was just a good bit of play from Palace. Intelligent pass, Townsend took advantage of one defender sitting deeper than the rest, good header back across. Sucker punch for us timing wise, but well within the rules and the players should know them, so likewise should know not to let Meyer get so far in behind.

[dknward2]

Thought the rule of seeking to gain an advantage was best then all this bullshit 2nd and 3rd phase

[VivaRovers]

Thought the rule of seeking to gain an advantage was best then all this bullshit 2nd and 3rd phase

Again there is absolutely nothing in the laws of the game about “phases of play” when it comes to offside. That’s just something pundits started saying that seems to have stuck.

First line of the offside law: “It is not an offence to be in an offside position”. Even if fans don’t know this, the players should.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Not a question of offside. Didn't think it at the time as when the ball chipped over to Townshend he wasn't offside. End of.

It was a poor goal given it was headed in 1 min 1 sec of 1 min injury time.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Viva

I'm perfectly happy to accept that I'm behind the times on the letter of the laws and in that case, my OP was OTT.

What I'm saying is that today's is a perfect example of the spirit of the law not being matched by the letter of the law..

I agree that it is not necessarily an offence simply being in an offside position. But when being in that offside position makes it physically impossible, 1 second later, for any defender to be able to challenge you then it is ridiculous to judge that you are not gaining an unfair advantage. That is obviously what the spirit of the offside law is about.

Tell you what. If we'd beaten Man City this weekend with that goal, there woukd have been endless analysis and debate about the letter, spirit and interpretation of the offside law.

[PDX_Rover]

We should have held the line and appealed en masse when the first chip went forward. Easy to say that of course in hindsight. The rule should be as it used to be... if a player is in an offside position when the ball is played forward he is offside. Shame really.

[BillyStubbsTears]

No. I disagree with that.

He WASN'T offside technically or morally when the ball was played up to Townsend. That's what Viva is alluding to in pointing out the first line of the law. At that point he wasn't seeking to gain an advantage.

My point is that, when he then be becomes active less than a second later, with the defenders having had no chance to get goalside and him having made no attempt to give up the advantage of his offside position, then it throws an entirely different light on his position for the first ball in terms of the SPIRIT of the law. (I'll accept that, apparently, it makes no difference to the letter of the law, because the letter of the law appears to be utterly detached from the whole concept of what offside means.)

[Filo]

No. I disagree with that.

He WASN'T offside technically or morally when the ball was played up to Townsend. That's what Viva is alluding to in pointing out the first line of the law. At that point he wasn't seeking to gain an advantage.

My point is that, when he then be becomes active less than a second later, with the defenders having had no chance to get goalside and him having made no attempt to give up the advantage of his offside position, then it throws an entirely different light on his position for the first ball in terms of the SPIRIT of the law. (I'll accept that, apparently, it makes no difference to the letter of the law, because the letter of the law appears to be utterly detached from the whole concept of what offside means.)

Just watched it on MOTD, I agree with everything you point out

[PDX_Rover]

Just watched it back. He's certainly behind our last defender by a yard or two and he's arguably 'in play' . given that he scored. How is that not offside?

I don't know what the f**king rules are anymore, to be honest.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The law is a farce if it condones goals like that.

You can't use the argument that Viva did that the onus should be on defenders to cover runs made by strikers into offside positions, just in case they become active later on. You couldn't possibly defend in those circumstances. If you use that standard, defending would become farcical, as attackers  would constantly run behind the defence as a means of pulling defenders out of position. It would be utterly impossible to keep a disciplined defensive line.

It's dead easy to address. If a player takes up a position that renders them technically offside during an attack, and gains from that, then they ARE offside. That's the only way to ensure proper application of the spirit of the offside law. If the law is not doing that at the moment then it's not fit for purpose.

And as I say, you'd never hear the last of it if a big club was knocked out by a small club with a goal like that.

[TheFunk]

For some reason Kevin Kilbane has never had a good word to say about rovers whenever he's commented on our games. Think it might stem from his playing career.

Just watched it back. What a complete dick he is. At one point near the end he says it's hard to be too critical about us after he's just spent 85 minutes saying how shit we were.

[hoolahoop]

For some reason Kevin Kilbane has never had a good word to say about rovers whenever he's commented on our games. Think it might stem from his playing career.

Just watched it back. What a complete dick he is. At one point near the end he says it's hard to be too critical about us after he's just spent 85 minutes saying how shit we were.

On that point you have total agreement.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Is Kilbane the new Kitson?

[Pliskin]

Wolves scored a similar goal recently - but far more pronounced.

Look where the goalscorer is when the initial pass comes forward. Defenders didn't stand a chance.

https://youtu.be/XP-B3kTfkiQ?t=19