Football’s problem with spurious precision and the offside rule
Why Arsene Wenger's proposed rule change doesn't fix football's offside rule problem
Former Arsenal manager, Arsene Wenger, now head of global development at FIFA, has proposed a change to the offside rule. His new suggestion is that an attacker would be onside if any part of their body that can score a goal (i.e. excluding the arms) is in line with the last defender. His hope is that the new “daylight rule” may offer a solution to the frustration many feel with current VAR decisions. At first glance, it seems a reasonable adjustment, one that could tilt the balance slightly back in favour of attacking play. But while it might change the outcomes of a handful of marginal decisions, it does nothing to fix the underlying problem: the illusion that offside can be measured with unerring precision using VAR technology.
The offside law itself is a clearly defined rule with what is, in theory, a binary outcome: a player is either offside or not. There is no room for ambiguity – and perhaps this is part of the problem. What has changed in recent years is the way this rule is enforced. VAR was introduced with the promise of increased fairness and accuracy. What it has delivered instead, in the case of implementing the off-side rule at least, is an artificial sense of certainty. Football fans and officials have allowed themselves to believe that a line drawn on a screen - based on a particular video frame and assumptions about body positioning - can objectively implement the offside rule down to the millimetre.
This belief is flawed. The video footage used by VAR for semi-automated offside operates at around 100 frames per second - meaning each frame spans roughly 0.01 seconds. In that time, a player sprinting at full speed can move several centimetres. Determining the exact frame in which the ball is played is already a subjective judgment. On top of that, identifying the precise parts of the players bodies that are nearest the goal - while both players are in motion - relies on subjective judgement. So, even VAR-assisted offside decisions are not an objective certainty. The result is a decision that appears precise but is based on layers of estimation.
The offside rule has always been about preventing “goal-hanging”—where an attacker lingers near the opponent’s goal in the hope of catching their defenders napping. It was designed to preserve the structure, contest and interest of football, not to disqualify legitimate attacking moves for millimetric infringements beyond the limits of unaided human judgement. Historically, referees and linesmen were expected to make a judgment, based on real-time observation, about whether an attacker had gained an unfair advantage by their positioning. With VAR we are trying to implement a bastardised version of that rule to a degree of precision that ultimately does nothing to enforce the original objective of the rule. If someone stands a centimetre or even 10 centimetres nearer to the goal than the last defender this doesn’t feel like the sort of goal-hanging the rule was designed to prevent.
Wenger’s proposal shifts the threshold, but not the method. It still asks VAR to draw forensic lines and make binary decisions based on ambiguous inputs. Instead of checking whether any part of the attacker’s body is beyond the defender, officials would now be checking whether any part is level. But the same flawed process - deciding which frame to use, identifying body parts in motion, and interpreting unclear visual data -remains integral to the decision. The same marginal calls would be made, giving rise to the same frustrations.
The real problem isn’t where we draw the line. It’s that we’ve convinced ourselves the technology can draw it with perfect accuracy. The better solution lies in acknowledging the limitations of the rule itself. Rather than pretending it offers total objectivity, football should accept that some calls exist in a grey area where precision isn’t possible. A tolerance zone - say 10–15 centimetres - could be introduced, within which the benefit goes to the attacker. This would reflect the inherent uncertainty in the system and avoid disallowing goals because of barely perceptible infringements.
Alternatively, VAR could be limited to correcting clear and obvious offside errors, as it was originally intended. If you can’t judge it clearly, by watching a real time replay from an angle that’s roughly level with the player, then it’s not a clear and obvious error. But this change would mean accepting that not every tight call needs to be scrutinised, especially when the available evidence is inconclusive.
Wenger’s proposed rule change simply shifts the problem from one subjective call to another. The real issue is not with the law itself, but it’s strict and spuriously precise interpretation fostered by the belief that technology can enforce it in a way that is both definitive and fair. Until football confronts that illusion, no amount of tinkering with definitions will restore the spirit of the game or ease the frustration of the fans.
And what about the exact moment that the ball is played to the attacker? Can that be determined with unerring precision?