VAR...the SOLUTION
Let’s end the madness of ‘armpit’ offsides. Here’s how…
IN August, The Mail on Sunday revealed that broadcast cameras used by VAR were not good enough to know for certain when it was ruling players to be as little as 2cm offside.
The madness struck once again yesterday when Sadio Mane had a goal chalked off for a marginal call.
It was reported this week that the FA would spearhead a UEFA push for VAR only to act on ‘clear and obvious’ offsides. But how? One idea has been to use thicker offside lines to judge it.
In an open letter to Premier League referees chief Mike Riley, we propose how clear and obvious offsides might work.
We accept that when you conceived the rules on VAR before this season, you were doing your best and laying down a first draft. The system was always going to need to evolve.
We know that you were working within the protocol laid down by the International Football Association Board, which unhelpfully describes offside as ‘factual’.
However, we all know now — partly, we would humbly suggest, thanks to The Mail on Sunday — that marginal offsides are not definitive and technology cannot rule on them with confidence.
So, it was with relief and joy that we noted the Home Nations football associations had joined UEFA to change what has become one of the more ludicrous, unintended consequences of VAR.
What will be known forever as the cases of Raheem Sterling’s armpit (against West Ham), Son Heungmin’s shoulder blade ( against Leicester) and Roberto Firmino’s armpit (against Aston Villa) have been among VAR’s worst moments this season.
When good goals are disallowed because the attacker is supposedly offside by a matter of centimetres, it undermines fans’ trust in the principle of VAR.
There i s nothing more souldestroying to a TV viewer than that graphic of the orange line representing the attacker a centimetre nearer the goal than the blue offside line, and instantly knowing such a tight margin will be enough to disallow the goal.
Of course, in the stadium the fee-paying fan hasn’t got a clue what is going on, but that’s an issue for another day.
We know you are now familiar with the flaw in VAR which means offside decisions such as Sterling’s armpit can never be described as ‘factual’. The margin of error is caused by the frame rate being only 50 per second. That being the case, if an attacking player is running at 18mph, they will travel almost 17cm between two frames.
The frame shown by the VAR is the first one after the ball has been passed, and the exact moment the ball is passed is at some point between the frame shown and the frame before.
Now, 17cm is a significant distance to be travelling between frames, because it means a player shown to be 10cm offside on TV would be 7cm onside in the previous frame. Yet the current system deems the striker is categorically offside in this scenario. That is demonstrably wrong.
You recently acknowledged this issue but said that there is one thing that VAR’s critics haven’t been able to provide: a working alternative to what is being used.
So Mike, here it is, the solution: just look at the previous frame!
Add in the frame before the one that you currently use, and draw the magic orange line on that one. If the player is onside in that first frame, but offside in the second frame, rule the player onside.
We all know that the technology isn’t good enough to prove that they aren’t onside. We’ve quickly and easily accounted for the margin of error with no extra software or maths required.
Or course, we’ll still all be arguing about tight offsides on the new line. That’s just part of the game we love. Arguing about offside is an integral part of being a fan! But at least now we know the decision won’t be potentially wrong.
The nonsense of Sterling’s armpit will be eliminated. And if you show viewers both frames, even if a player is only marginally offside in the first frame, on the second one that player will be clearly offside. That should appease some of the most vocal critics. Some, though not all!
We know you’re only working within the current laws. But if the law is an ass, then the sensible thing to do is change it. Recognise the mistakes made and devise a new system.
Yours in anticipation,