what a (yester)DAY

[boris]

Unless, of course, they were off-side from the original shot. Would love to see this again, because first instincts were that it was never off-side.

TV pictures did not provide conclusive evidence.

It looked to me, from the TV pics, that Duffy was offside when the initial shot went in, but Robinson wasn't, so if Duffy had left it for new Robbo, I wonder if the goal would have counted? Of course, if the lino raised his flag when the first shot went in then I wouldn't have been surprised if that bumbling baboon of a ref would have disallowed it even if Bastock hadn't saved the initial shot.

[Radley Rambler]

I thought the rule had been changed a couple of years ago so that if the ball hit an opposing player, it did not make attackers automatically 'onside'. If my recollection is correct, that might be the reason why they were offside?

[Baboo]

actually i saw the goal again on tv last night, and have changed my mind! i really don't remember him starting from that far out. a la the old joke about seeing whether the wayward shot goes in on the replay, he ran further and beat more men on the replay.

sometimes i wonder if i can ever watch an oxford game from the perspective of an 'objective' football fan - i spend too much time thinking that they're either useless or untouchable.

Determination it is (was) then.

[A-Ro]

I thought the rule had been changed a couple of years ago so that if the ball hit an opposing player, it did not make attackers automatically 'onside'. If my recollection is correct, that might be the reason why they were offside?

Perhaps we need a defenition from somebody who actually knows the offside rule (are we really all turning into girls?)

For my part I understand that there are now distinct &quotphases&quot of play and once the ball has been dealt with by a defender then it becomes another phase. You have to admit that the ball was definitely dealt with by Bastock (as opposed to hit him) and therefore his save started another phase. In the spirit of the law that goal should have stood unless you think that the referee would have disallowed it even if it had gone straight in (which, because of his general level of ineptitude, is perfectly possible)

Again, for my part, I believe that if the shot had gone straight in then it would have stood because the ball was not going to the forward players and they were too far out to be construed as interfering with the shot.