2 hours ago
1
Arsene Wenger's offside law proposal has been debated for a long time. Six years, in fact.
It will be on the agenda again on Tuesday when the International Football Association Board (Ifab) meets to discuss potential changes for next season.
But the law is no closer to being altered than it was in 2020.
That is despite controversial "microscopic" VAR decisions, ruling to the millimetre. Or are we only talking about changing the law because of them?
Think Coventry's dramatic goal in time added on at the end of extra time against Manchester United in the FA Cup semi-final two years ago. Had it stood, Coventry would have won 4-3. Instead, they lost on penalties. VAR stripped away what would have been one of the most iconic goals in the competition's history.
Still, should the very fabric of the game at all levels be changed because of VAR?
And how realistic is it that Wenger's law will be adopted?
Wenger was appointed Fifa's chief of global football development in November 2019. One of his key remits was to find ways to promote attacking play.
Within weeks he had presented his plan to revolutionise offside: visual separation - or, as it is more commonly known, daylight between players.
The former Arsenal manager says that if "any part of your body is on the same line as the defender, you're not offside".
In other words, there needs to be a complete gap between the attacker and the second-to-last opposition player - effectively the last defender, given the goalkeeper's usual positioning.
Offside has only had two major changes since 1863 when the laws were written - in 1925 and again in 1990.
It has had so few modifications because it is a very effective law. It is the bedrock of tactical systems and the way the game is played.
That last alteration, in 1990, followed a World Cup characterised by defensive football. The 2.21 goals-per-game average in Italy is the lowest in the history of the competition.
Ifab changed it so that you just needed to be level with the second-to-last opponent rather than behind.
It promoted more attacking play while retaining a fair battle between forward and defender.
Today, no-one is talking about a shortage of goals. The discussion has been created by VAR taking goals away in a forensic way.
In October, Ifab's advisory panels cautioned against rewriting offside just because of close and controversial VAR decisions.
You can see their point. VAR impacts only a small fraction of football.
After some initial progress and minor trials, the talk of Wenger's law quietened down. Semi-automated offside technology (SAOT) has brought it back to the table.
SAOT is producing even more unpalatable, marginal offside calls.
It took five minutes 30 seconds to disallow a Manchester City goal at Newcastle on in the Carabao Cup on Tuesday, because the players were too close together for SAOT to work.
BBC Sport has learned of many issues which have beset SAOT in Europe's top leagues, meaning VAR has to revert to the old line-drawing technology.
In one league, confetti on the pitch interfered with SAOT. In another, the system has been known to select the wrong defender.
We are relying on this as the key evidence to change offside for everyone.
The Wenger proposal forgets one thing, too.
No matter how you define the law, there will always be the point where a player moves from being onside to offside. And VAR would still be there to make the marginal decision.
This feels like a VAR problem, and not an issue for the wider game.
After every Ifab meeting, you will find some reference to a discussion about offside.
So unconvinced has Ifab been that, even after all this time, Wenger's law has not been offered up to associations to try out in senior football.
That would be the next step. It will not be parachuted directly into the World Cup or the Premier League next season.
Low-level trials were held in Italy's under-18 championship in 2023, and in youth competitions in the Netherlands.
BBC Sport has been told that the results were largely positive, though there were some concerns there is too much of an advantage to the attacker.
These are minor competitions and it must be used in real competitions, including those with VAR. The game need to know how tactics would be adjusted and impact properly assessed.
Trials exist to avoid unintended consequences. Wenger's law could produce too many goals, or it could cause a reduction.
There are plenty of examples of failed tests.
In 2000-01, a free-kick was moved forward 10 yards if there was an act of dissent. That proved too confusing in leagues which were not aware of rugby, where it originated.
There is the ABBA penalty shootout from 2017-18. It alternated the order of kicks but confused players and supporters.
In the 1987-88 season, the National League - then known as the Conference - tried out a tweak which meant a player could not be offside from a free-kick. Defences packed the six-yard box. An attempt to promote more attacking play led to more defensive tactics.
The same could happen at set-pieces with Wenger's law. Defenders could be forced to drop deeper to prevent an attacker getting space in behind, especially at free-kicks.
Wenger's law is often visualised as two players running down the centre of the pitch. But there would be a greater impact, and advantage to the attacker, inside the penalty area.
An alternate suggestion has been to use the torso as the reference point for offside, ignoring the feet and the head. Just how that could work in practice for assistant referees, especially in a crowd of bodies, is unclear.
If trials were successful, realistically it would be 2028-29 before a change would be rolled out across the game.
Is Wenger's law a good idea? Right now it is a question which is impossible to answer.
