4 hours ago
7
Five years ago, Fifa’s chief of global development, Arsène Wenger, outlined his bold plans to change the offside law.
“The most difficult [issue] that people have [with VAR] is the offside rule,” he said. “You have had offsides by a fraction of a centimetre, literally by a nose. It is the time to do this quickly.
“There is room to change the rule and not say that a part of a player’s nose is offside, so you are offside because you can score with that. Instead, you will be not be offside if any part of the body that can score a goal is in line with the last defender, even if other parts of the attacker’s body are in front. That will sort it out and you will no longer have decisions about millimetres and a fraction of the attacker being in front of the defensive line.”
I can’t actually recall someone being offside literally by a nose – VAR came in after Alan Smith stopped playing (many apologies Smudge, first big-nosed player that came to mind; a compliment if anything).
Fortunately for all of us, Wenger’s plea to do this quickly didn’t materialise. And it is astonishing that neither he, nor anyone around him, has noticed how absolutely disastrous this change would be.
Five years later, on beIN Sports this week, he reiterated this position. “In 1990 we decided that [there is] no offside any more when you are on the same line [as the defender]. In case of doubt the doubt benefits the striker. That means when there’s a fraction the striker could get the advantage. With VAR this advantage disappeared … It’s frustrating. That’s why I propose that as long as any part of your body is on the same line as the defender then you are not offside.”
Now to be absolutely clear, I am a big daylight fan. My kids love daylight. I spend a great deal of time in daylight, I see some of my best friends in daylight. I’m also a big admirer of Wenger. The football Arsenal played under him was glorious at times – even if they did on occasion just try to walk it in. This is not suggesting he’s past it and we should ignore his views on the game in the way people should definitely stop asking Des Lynam what he thinks of female pundits.
However frustrated we are talking about toenails and shoulders, and any other pointy bit you can score with – your knees, your chins, your Adam’s apples – this would just change the discussion to heels and protruding backsides. Terrible implications perhaps for the buttock augmentation industry (I confess to not being an expert in this particular field).
If you consider a striker sprinting through and a defender stepping out, if the attacking player is deemed onside if the point of the toe of his fully extended trailing leg is just in line with the heel of the centre back, it would weigh things in the attacking team’s favour to a ludicrous extent. High lines would disappear, and we love high lines – Barcelona, Spurs, Aston Villa, etc – however terrifying they are for the supporters.
It is extraordinary that someone in such a position of influence, or at least someone who has watched so much football, can’t see how this would change the game. Low blocks everywhere. Set pieces would be impossible to defend.
A couple of months ago, Wenger supported the continuation of trials over “torso offsides” discussed at an International Football Association Board (Ifab) meeting in Belfast. According to our reporting, moving the line back, to where the player’s torso is in line, is gaining favour among lawmakers, with the rationale that not only would it be a more balanced cutoff point but that the torso is easier to capture using tracking software, potentially allowing for quicker decisions.
So is it daylight, is it the torso, or is it where we are currently? Can we stop moving the goalposts – apologies, probably best not to bring goalposts into this. The torso idea is interesting. When it was first suggested, there were a number of offside goals in the Premier League that would have counted in a torso world. I’d be interested to see a game of profile but no importance (eg the Community Shield) try it out so we could all see.
after newsletter promotion
But if the problem is that really close VAR offsides are frustrating for everyone (and really close VAR offsides are frustrating for everyone), then moving the line doesn’t change anything. There will always be a line, there will always be decisions made by millimetres. When does daylight begin? 1cm? 1mm? 0.1mm? What’s the right amount of daylight? When does a torso begin? Do players start hitching their shorts to Simon Cowell heights?
Offside wasn’t introduced for any of this. It was introduced to stop goalhanging. The endless delays for offside are one of the main reasons my VAR journey has gone from vaguely pro to indifferent to in favour of getting rid.
But I disagree with Wenger that offside is the most difficult issue fans have with VAR – when I say fans, I mean me. And with no apologies for repeating myself, VAR has broken the handball law. Myles Lewis-Skelly’s handball in Wednesday’s PSG-Arsenal game is one such example.
No one in the ground or at home noticed it. In fact, when “Potential penalty check” appeared on the screen, a hoard of Arsenal fans being filmed at Boxpark Wembley presumed it was for them because the ball was up the other end.
We are so far down the handball rabbit warren that people just accept it. Thank goodness Sue Smith on the international co-comms made all the important points: “It’s so close, he’s turning his back, his arm is out for balance, I think that’s a really harsh penalty.” In no world should that be a penalty. And everyone involved in managing the laws of football should be ashamed that they’ve let the game get to this stage.
That PSG get an 80% chance of a goal because the ball brushes Lewis-Skelly’s hand when goals are such a rarity in football is ridiculous. And goals being a rarity are what makes football the greatest sport. If we are determined to penalise all handballs, make this a free-kick. Hopefully someone at Fifa or Ifab, even Arsène Wenger, will acknowledge this and try to change it. Yours, desperately hoping someone will see the (day)light.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
