A Sky viewer tonight.

[Usher wide.]

But hopefully we have our ‘uses’.

The ‘cut’ to live coverage came as we saw the Rovers’s contingent being shown to the away changing dressing room as they entered the Fleetwood ‘tunnel’ from their coach.

The Fleetwood ‘director of welcome’ politely told the ‘boys’ “You need to be to the left here sir”.

First to show was Bailey followed by Anderson, Sterry then…..
Coppinger.

I was blown away….well delighted then blown away!

So brilliant to see James still clearly an integral part of the club that you would only ever have ‘caught’ courtesy of TV.

You guys who were in that pishing, wind driven rain tonight deserve every piece of ‘positivity’ that comes your way!

I bow down…not worthy!

[Jimmydee]

I can assure you that a couple of pre match beers helped.

[Padge_DRFC]

At least there was a roof. Accrington wow last season.

[Spud]

Tbf, once in the ground it was OK, the rain was blowing the right way, from behind us. Those home fans behind the goal at the other end probably got wet, as did the few Rovers fans in the seats, perhaps?

[Fal]

The commentator was clearly bias towards Fleetwood

[roversdude]

We were ok in the seats but sat near the back where the side wasn’t so open

[Usher wide.]

The commentator was clearly bias towards Fleetwood

Not much!

All you could hear were the Rovers fans singing but he kept saying throughout how the Fleetwood fans were not giving the game up & were spurring their players on.

On 51 minutes, Ted pulled some mud from the bottom of his ‘kicking boot’ before a goal kick & the commentator said “The Doncaster keeper clearly looking to waste a few seconds there”!!

A Sterry tackle had him wondering if “….on another day that might well have been a red”. Sterry wasn’t even booked!

To##er.

[drfchound]

The commentator was clearly bias towards Fleetwood

Not much!

All you could hear were the Rovers fans singing but he kept saying throughout how the Fleetwood fans were not giving the game up & were spurring their players on.

On 51 minutes, Ted pulled some mud from the bottom of his ‘kicking boot’ before a goal kick & the commentator said “The Doncaster keeper clearly looking to waste a few seconds there”!!

A Sterry tackle had him wondering if “….on another day that might well have been a red”. Sterry wasn’t even booked!

To##er.

I remember that comment Usher, it was a bit silly wasn’t it.
Sterry was booked by the way but in my view it was just one of those instances when two players go for a ball which might end up with someone getting hurt but with no bad intentions made by either of them.
He talked about Sterry leading with his elbow but that was never the case.

[Ian Nimmo]

Agree with the two comments made, although I thought sterry was a little lucky, it could have gone either way given some of the decisions we have seen from refs this season.
However there were lots of praises about us from the guy.
He also thought that there goal was offside, later in the commentary I don’t think he was totally convinced with the explanation that had been given    that jay touched the ball before their player.

[drfchound]

Crackers isn’t  it, who does fully understand the offside law now.
The scorer was in an offside position when the first ball was played in, which gave him an advantage (how can that not be interfering with play) and was still in an offside position when the second ball was played to him.
Even if it did touch Jay, surely an offside offence has taken place.

[i_ateallthepies]

Crackers isn’t  it, who does fully understand the offside law now.
The scorer was in an offside position when the first ball was played in, which gave him an advantage (how can that not be interfering with play) and was still in an offside position when the second ball was played to him.
Even if it did touch Jay, surely an offside offence has taken place.

Completely agree with this.  If it really is the rule that in the circumstances of this incident any touch by a defender nullifies the offside then the logical conclusion would be that in order for the defending side to avoid nullifying offside they must avoid contact with the ball.  If that really is the situation then it is totally laughable.

[Spud]

Jay's had some tough luck at both ends hasn't he? Deemed to have got the touch that played their goal onside, then had one taken away from him for similar at the other end?
I'm sure it will be worth the wait, Jay.

[Dutch Uncle]

Crackers isn’t  it, who does fully understand the offside law now.
The scorer was in an offside position when the first ball was played in, which gave him an advantage (how can that not be interfering with play) and was still in an offside position when the second ball was played to him.
Even if it did touch Jay, surely an offside offence has taken place.

Completely agree with this.  If it really is the rule that in the circumstances of this incident any touch by a defender nullifies the offside then the logical conclusion would be that in order for the defending side to avoid nullifying offside they must avoid contact with the ball.  If that really is the situation then it is totally laughable.

Indeed. The Fleetwood player was absolutely interfering with play, or active, before McGrath touched the ball. He effectively tackled him.

I remember Shankly scoffing at the 'not interfering with the play' rule by saying something like 'I never want to see any player of mine not interfering with play' 

[donnievic]

Crackers isn’t  it, who does fully understand the offside law now.
The scorer was in an offside position when the first ball was played in, which gave him an advantage (how can that not be interfering with play) and was still in an offside position when the second ball was played to him.
Even if it did touch Jay, surely an offside offence has taken place.

commentator was was guessing at that though,he was offside simple as and the lino f**ked up

[BobG]

I remember that too Brian. A slightly different form, but the exact same sense.

Does anyone, anyone, know why they changed the damn rule in the first place?

And although the previous rule was open to a degree of interpretation, this rule today seems to me to be almost entirely subjective. How is that justified? Don't tell me... A whole load of super complicated waffle....

BobG

[adamtherover]

Crackers isn’t  it, who does fully understand the offside law now.
The scorer was in an offside position when the first ball was played in, which gave him an advantage (how can that not be interfering with play) and was still in an offside position when the second ball was played to him.
Even if it did touch Jay, surely an offside offence has taken place.

Completely agree with this.  If it really is the rule that in the circumstances of this incident any touch by a defender nullifies the offside then the logical conclusion would be that in order for the defending side to avoid nullifying offside they must avoid contact with the ball.  If that really is the situation then it is totally laughable.

Indeed. The Fleetwood player was absolutely interfering with play, or active, before McGrath touched the ball. He effectively tackled him.

I remember Shankly scoffing at the 'not interfering with the play' rule by saying something like 'I never want to see any player of mine not interfering with play' 

as cloughie once said, if he's not interfering with play, what the hell is he doing on the pitch?

[Donnywolf]

Close , I was actually thinking of Bill Shankleys comment , if a player isn't interfering with play he shouldn't be on the pitch

Maybe Cloughie nicked it later on ?

[Donnywolf]

https://quotefancy.com/quote/1409572/Bill-Shankly-If-a-player-is-not-interfering-with-play-or-seeking-to-gain-an-advantage

Looking it up Shankley is supposed to have said the above , similar but not the same as the one correctly attributed to Cloughie above