THE GREAT VAR DEBATE: Technology is not yet advanced enough and said Raheem Sterling was 2.4cm offside... but allowed for a 13cm margin for error in making the decision

  • VAR is being implemented for the first time in the Premier League this season 
  • During Manchester City's 5-0 opener with West Ham it came heavily into play 
  • Raheem Sterling was said to be off by 2.4cm, but VAR allowed a 13cm margin
  • City were again caught up with VAR after having a winner chalked off vs Spurs 

Doubts over VAR’s accuracy in deciding offside calls are now heightened as The Mail on Sunday can reveal findings that show flaws in the technology currently rocking football.

Referee bosses insist the technology being used gives almost 100 per cent certainty in tight offside decisions — but we can reveal that is simply not the case. And that, in the view of former England international Danny Murphy, is another reason to have a major rethink of the whole system.

Manchester City’s 5-0 win at West Ham on the opening weekend was overshadowed by two highly contentious offside calls which VAR diehards insisted were tight — and right.

Raheem Sterling felt the force of VAR on the opening Premier League weekend vs West Ham

Raheem Sterling felt the force of VAR on the opening Premier League weekend vs West Ham

Yet the technology used in trying to determine when a ball was passed and when a run was made is actually not advanced enough — with a margin for error that could be as big as 38.8cm (14inches). It provides more ammunition to critics of the scheme, like The Mail on Sunday columnist Murphy, who wants to see the system scrapped until it’s fit for purpose.


‘Football is becoming obsessed by the pursuit of perfection through VAR,’ said Murphy in his column inside today. ‘It’s unattainable and, in the meantime, they are killing the joy of our game.

‘My preference would be for VAR to be scrapped in all instances except goalline technology. I just don’t believe offsides are the clear and definitive “yes or no” that the referees claim they are.’

VAR has made some big calls already and chalked off City's goals against West Ham

VAR has made some big calls already and chalked off City's goals against West Ham

There was more VAR controversy on Saturday when City had an injury-time goal ruled out in a 2-2 draw against Tottenham for handball.

‘It doesn’t matter if it’s a close offside, offside is offside.’ Alan Shearer says the words with such conviction on the Premier League’s VAR explainer video that it is difficult not to believe him.

And why wouldn’t you? Fans have been sold the idea that decisions like offsides are black and white. It’s objective, undoubtable. An attacker is onside or he is offside. There is no grey area.

Offside, we are told, is an exact science. Former referee Peter Walton even likened it to goal-line technology. ‘By the end of the season, people will come around to thinking the same way about VAR and offside,’ he said. ‘It is a factual decision with no subjective judgement involved.’

That’s why the VAR sticklers could shrug and smirk in the face of complaints that the decision to rule out a Gabriel Jesus goal in Manchester City’s victory over West Ham on the opening weekend of the season because Raheem Sterling’s armpit hair was offside tore the soul out of football.

‘Maybe the intensity and passion will leave,’ said Pep Guardiola. ‘Hopefully, it doesn’t make mistake. If it’s offside, it’s offside.’

Even Pep can rest a little easier knowing the decision was definitely, infallibly correct.

That’s just the thing. It’s not. For a start, the offside line that’s drawn on the screen to judge the most advanced ‘active’ part of the attacker is plotted by the video operator in agreement with the VAR. A human eye as guide, drawing up from the armpit to find the shoulder. Not a calibrated machine like goal-line technology.

It was deja vu for City after their additional time winner was ruled out for a handball before

It was deja vu for City after their additional time winner was ruled out for a handball before

But that’s not even the major issue. The technology available means that VARs, when it is as marginal as the Sterling decision, are simply unable to know with certainty that a player is offside.

The laws state a player is to be judged on or offside at ‘the first point of contact’ when the ball is played. The technology is not advanced enough to know when that is.

Cameras used by VAR run at 50 frames per second. One picture taken every 0.02 seconds. To the human eye, it looks like a moving image.

For offsides, VAR has to choose the frame which shows the ball has categorically been touched. If Frame A shows the boot an inch away from the ball, then VAR has to take the next one in which the ball has definitely been played.

In reality, though, the first point of contact will be somewhere between. And as The Mail on Sunday has calculated, for decisions as tight as Sterling’s, a player can move quickly enough to move from onside to offside. And that’s crucial. It means there is a margin of error. And that margin varies depending how fast attackers and defenders are running.

The maths is explained in the panel above. But using the fastest speed recorded in the Premier League last season — 21.75mph (35kmh) — that margin of error could be as big as 38.8cm. More than 1ft 3in.

It comes down to this: if the attacking player is shown to be offside by less than the margin of error, the VAR cannot be sure whether they were offside or not at the exact moment the ball was played. Offsides are not as black-and-white as goal-line technology. Why should they be treated as such?

But what on earth to do about it. Get rid of VAR altogether? That won’t happen. It shouldn’t happen either. Overall, it’s a good thing. Stick with it then? Grin and bear it, accepting this imperfect perfectionism? Or do you change it?

The Premier League did not want to comment but reports last week claimed that lawmakers were to discuss whether offsides should be subject to a ‘clear and obvious’ test. That feels more intuitive. You’re not searching to find a way to disallow a great goal, you’re only trying to assess whether the assistant could reasonably have spotted it.

But how would that work in reality? What is clear and obvious? Do you allow a margin of error when that margin of error has been shown to change depending on the players and the situation. No two are ever the same. Suddenly offsides become an even vaguer decision of right and wrong.

Pep Guardiola was bemused on the touchline, and argued his case with Mauricio Pochettino

Pep Guardiola was bemused on the touchline, and argued his case with Mauricio Pochettino

You could tweak the laws. Some have suggested that if any playing part of the body is onside, then it’s onside. But does that not just shift where you draw the line. Instead of the under the armpit, it moves somewhere to the back of the heel. The same problem arises.

Where do you draw the line, then? In every sense. At the very least VAR cannot continue to disallow goals by minute margins using a method which is proclaimed to be perfect but is not.

The comments below have not been moderated.

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.