Observation on their second goal.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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

Good call.

That rule's f**king ba-baa int it, if it says goals like that and today's are OK.

[VivaRovers]

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....

Yes you can. They're professional footballers. These are the rules and have been for some time. They should be aware of them and prepared to adapt their game accordingly where need be. That doesn't mean tracking every offside run, it means having the awareness that if a player gets in behind you they can cut it back to someone, so in that situation you need to track.

Meyer was aware of the rules, was initially running back onside, then realised he didn't need to as the ball was about to be cut back across. It's not as if the ball was zipped out to Townsend and then powered back across the area, there was time to get back if they'd clocked on a bit quicker.

And teams concede goals like this all the time. This is the only time I've ever known anyone get so irate about it.

[POD]

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....

Yes you can. They're professional footballers. These are the rules and have been for some time. They should be aware of them and prepared to adapt their game accordingly where need be. That doesn't mean tracking every offside run, it means having the awareness that if a player gets in behind you they can cut it back to someone, so in that situation you need to track.

Meyer was aware of the rules, was initially running back onside, then realised he didn't need to as the ball was about to be cut back across. It's not as if the ball was zipped out to Townsend and then powered back across the area, there was time to get back if they'd clocked on a bit quicker.

And teams concede goals like this all the time. This is the only time I've ever known anyone get so irate about it.

I agree entirely with your analysis Viva.  I’m sure if we look back at the Rovers goals archive, we will have scored goals similar to this one.  It was a clever piece of play by Palace and well within the laws.

One thing I would like to throw into the argument is the fact that we occasionally have the situation where a shot comes in, hits the post or is saved by the keeper and then rebounds to a player who was offside when the original shot came in.  If he then scores, the goal would be chalked off as he would be deemed to be gaining an unfair advantage.

How is this different?

[VivaRovers]

How is this different?

Key difference is the ball is played forwards rather than square or backwards.

[Donnywolf]

Does all this not just tell us that the Offside Rule is extremely poor in the way it operates and should revert to the (dare I say) simpler version that served us "well" for a few decades

OR

abolish it altogether ? Teams would cope with the changes I have no doubt

[selby]

  Could anyone please explain to me how a player coming back into play from an offside position is not,
  1) seeking to gain an advantage in the build up?
  2) it is not ungentlemanly play?
  3) is not interfering with play?
  4) If he is in the six yard box in 90%of play is not in the line of the goalkeepers vision?

[VivaRovers]

The offside rule is simple and straight forward. It only gets confused when folk start to take things they've heard pundits say like "phases of play" and "gaining an advantage" as being part of the rule. They aren't.

If you're not sure of it, then look it up. It'd only take two minutes. You might find yourself getting less irate at matches as a result.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Viva

I think we have very different thoughts on what the spirit of the law on offside is about. What Meyer was doing was, as you say, cleverly gaming the letter of the law, but that shows that the letter of the law is badly broken.

I'll repeat the bit of my earlier post that you omitted in your reply. If you expect defenders to drop to cover players who have run into grossly offside positions because, you have (unintentionally I think) destroyed the concept of defending as we know it.

What you are implying is that yesterday, Downing or Anderson should have dropped off four yards to cover Meyer when Milivojevic received the ball. I can't see any other interpretation of your demand for them "having the awareness that if a player gets in behind you they can cut it back to someone, so in that situation you need to track."

But had they done that, that would have opened up a huge gap in the defensive line, which would have given Palace a great chance to attack. That makes a mockery of the concept of defending. I cannot imagine that that was the intention behind the current take on the interpretation of offside.

[RoversAlias]

There is no "spirit" of the law though, there is only the law. If you are stood beyond all bar one of the opposition's players when the ball is played forward, and you touch the ball, you are offside. Meyer hasn't done a single thing wrong and the only fault on that goal is on our slack defending. There isn't anything wrong with the law either, in my opinion.

[selby]

  Arsenal in the 1920,s just played the double centre half system to counteract forwards doing this, the two defenders just staying in their own penalty area behind play.
 It was successful and many games ended 0-0 causing crowd attendances to drop when other teams adopted this method of defending.
  It may happen again if a team go really defensive and have success.

[BillyStubbsTears]

RA
Nope. Wrong I'm afraid. "Spirit" is the concept that underpins the letter of the law. Spirit comes first. You assess what transgressions you want to regulate. Then you attempt to codify that spirit in legalistic terms.


The very first page of FIFA's official document on the laws of the game says:

"Football must have Laws which keep the game "fair", as a crucial foundation of the beauty of the "beautiful game" is its fairness - this is a vital feature of the spirit of the game."

The FA say "Decisions will be made to the best of the referee`s ability according to the Laws of the Game and the spirit of the game."

My argument is that a law which allows a player to gain an advantage like Meyer did yesterday is not functioning correctly, because that is clearly against the spirit of what the offside rule has tried to outlaw.

I accept that I went OTT in the OP, in my ignorance of the letter ofvthe law. Because it had never dawned on me that the letter could be so far removed from the spirit.

[selby]

  Apart from all else, the goal was scored after the whistle should have brought the first half to an end.That was the biggest mistake.

[drfchound]

Why was there even one minute added on?
There hadn’t been any time wasting, substitutions or injuries.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hound. I was asking the same thing myself yesterday.

We played just 30 seconds more stoppage time in the second half than we did in the first.

[VivaRovers]

Why was there even one minute added on?
There hadn’t been any time wasting, substitutions or injuries.

You must've nodded off every time Wayne Hennessey took a goal kick.

...you lucky sod.

[VivaRovers]

I'll repeat the bit of my earlier post that you omitted in your reply. If you expect defenders to drop to cover players who have run into grossly offside positions because, you have (unintentionally I think) destroyed the concept of defending as we know it.

Except for the bit where I referenced it...

"...that doesn't mean tracking every offside run, it means having the awareness that if a player gets in behind you they can cut it back to someone, so in that situation you need to track."

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yep ok. But as I say, on that substantive point, you're saying a defender should have dropped 4 yards out of the line to cover Meyer. That was the only way a defender could have done anything to negate Meyer's advantage once he had taken up a position so far behind the defensive line.

I agree with you about the letter of the law. Do you really consider that an attacker gaining an advantage in that way is within the spirit of the game?

[selby]

 Viva, despite the time wasting of Hennessey, the Referee added one minute, and then ignored his own time limit with no stoppage in play requiring him to do so.
  Letting play continue to finish a move is something creeping into the game by some officials. Others will not do it, just another inconsistency that officials bring upon themselves.
  This thread is about a goal scored that should never have happened because of poor time keeping, and as far as we were concerned was the end of our chances of getting back in the game.

[IDM]

The ball hit the net 5 or 6 seconds after the minimum one minute was up.. can’t really complain about that..

I believe 30 seconds are added for this first goal but the minimum time you can add in is one minute..

No argument really..

[POD]

Viva, despite the time wasting of Hennessey, the Referee added one minute, and then ignored his own time limit with no stoppage in play requiring him to do so.
  Letting play continue to finish a move is something creeping into the game by some officials. Others will not do it, just another inconsistency that officials bring upon themselves.
  This thread is about a goal scored that should never have happened because of poor time keeping, and as far as we were concerned was the end of our chances of getting back in the game.

The referee will always hide behind the fact that it is a “minimum” of one minute of added time.  He could for example have 1 minute and 50 seconds to play, but will still indicate one minute. 
I have just looked back on the TV clock and the ball enters the net at 1 minute and 2 seconds over the 45 minutes.  There is no way that a referee will blow when the ball is going into the box like that, otherwise we will end up with a Clive Thomas / Brazil World Cup moment. 
I think that we are clutching at straws here and whilst it’s natural
to analyse things after the game and look for “ifs and maybes”, overall Palace showed their class throughout the 90 minutes and deservedly won the game on the day without getting into top gear. 

[donnievic]

And that is why you now see more often or not an assistant doesn’t raise his flag until the player who is offside at the time of the pass touches only other time he will be given offside is if he is in line of the keepers sight at a shot at goal

[VivaRovers]

Viva, despite the time wasting of Hennessey, the Referee added one minute, and then ignored his own time limit with no stoppage in play requiring him to do so.

Nope, the referee signalled "a minimum of one additional minute", which would allow for (in theory) up to 1 mins and 59 seconds of additional time to be played, given the next indication that can be given is "a minimum of two minutes".

The goal was scored within this time period. Nowt to complain about.

[RoversAlias]

BST, for me you are overthinking it and getting bogged down in the exact wording of the laws. He's not offside, it's quite simple to me.

As for the notion by others that it shouldn't have stood because more than one minute had elapsed...that "minimum" is in the language for a reason. You can't add on "1 minute, 15 seconds" for example if that's how much time has been wasted by the clock. The fact is, our players needed to maintain their concentration until the half time whistle and unfortunately they didn't.

[mjg]

Perfectly good goal

[Bristol Red Rover]

The added on time is usually calculated at around a minute before the end of normal time. As well as having in mind that say 3 mins time may be 3 mins and 59 sec, the ref can add on any further time they wish if other things happen - eg time wasting, goals, substitutions.

I liked it better in the old jumpers for goal posts days when added time was just between the ref and his watch.

[rich1471]

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

that was my point what is stopping teams doing this every week

[drfchound]

Why was there even one minute added on?
There hadn’t been any time wasting, substitutions or injuries.

You must've nodded off every time Wayne Hennessey took a goal kick.

...you lucky sod.

Quite ironic then that Palace scored in the time added on for.........Palace wasting time.

[Donnywolf]

... and its why it will be better forever when we go to a fixed 30 Minutes each way and the Clock stops every time the ball goes dead. So Hennessey having a drink before every goal kick then deciding to kick the ball from the furthest sid from the bottle and the stance he took (like a Diver) before the (eventual) run up will taken straight out of the game.

It will break up the oppos "head of steam" if they let it but there will be no time penalties. Refs may then feel "empowered" to actually make players take throw ins and free kicks from the correct spot because again it is costing no time

You may all be late for your Tea or Train but a small price to pay

[BillyStubbsTears]

BST, for me you are overthinking it and getting bogged down in the exact wording of the laws. He's not offside, it's quite simple to me.

As for the notion by others that it shouldn't have stood because more than one minute had elapsed...that "minimum" is in the language for a reason. You can't add on "1 minute, 15 seconds" for example if that's how much time has been wasted by the clock. The fact is, our players needed to maintain their concentration until the half time whistle and unfortunately they didn't.

RA.

Struggling to see how I'm getting bogged down in the exact wording of the law, when I've been talking about the SPIRIT of the law and I've said nowt about the WORDING of the offside law.

As for our defenders' concentration, my whole point is that there is simply no way you CAN defend against the position Meyer took up. It's technically impossible to do so, without chucking away all the basic tenets of defending. That's the problem with the offside law as its interpretation currently appears to stand, and that is why Meyer gaining an advantage in that way is totally against the spirit of the offside law.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

As said in the other thread, they gained the advantage by being too good for us. The run from Townshend, the chipped pass on a sixpence and in turn his header on to Mayer on a sixpence who was back onside.

Just accept the scored a really good goal made to look very simple. We were outwitted!