Bill Shankly Was Right About Referees. Part Two: VAR Offside

A couple of weeks ago I published a piece about Bill Shankly’s views on referees, and how they still hold true to this day even after all the “improvements” made to the game since the days of black-and-white photographs.

Shankly said of match officials: “the trouble with referees is that they know the rules, but they do not know the game.” In the previous post I explained how Lee Probert’s comments about a recent handball (or, rather, non-handball) bore out Shankly’s statements. Today, I will talk about how some more of Probert’s nonsense – this time about VAR “offsides” – prove Shankly to be right.

Of VAR’s application of the offside law, Probert says: “People say VAR is ruining football, but it isn't. Things like offside are factual. They are black-and-white decisions.”

Well, Mr. Probert, here are the facts.

This was the first example of how VAR technology is truly used to judge whether a player is offside. Some nerd in a booth in Stockley Park, often hundreds of miles from the game, starts playing with digital lines. Then another set. Sounds scientific, right? WRONG. What they do (and indeed, what Martin Atkinson did in the example above) is shift the lines about pixel-by-pixel, until they can find a way to change the on-field decision.

Not only is this agonising to watch, and not only does it suck the life out of a game, but it’s bad science to boot. At this end they deal in millimetres; at the other they pick their best guess as to when they think the ball was played. A thirteen-year-old who has done one introductory science class can tell you that’s bollocks.

So that, Mr Probert, is the end of your “factual” defence of VAR offsides.

But I’m not just bitter because this call went against Liverpool. Oh no. In the interests of impartiality, I offer an assortment of these appalling decisions.

Sheffield United's John Lundstram under VAR's microscope against Tottenham

Manchester City's Raheem Sterling, eventually concluded to be onside when scoring against Aston Villa

To this day Liverpool have not received an explanation as to what part of Sadio Mane's body was offside here

This one went in Liverpool's favour, as a Wolves equaliser was chalked off

Before VAR, we had a word for all of these situations: level.

And when you’re level, you’re onside.

This nonsense almost reared its ugly head again the other weekend, as the VAR did his utmost from Stockley Park to rule out a wonderful team goal by Tottenham Hotspur. Erik Lamela clipped it in behind the defence, Son Heung-min cushioned it square for Harry Kane, and the Spurs frontman nodded into an empty net. A great goal, and one which took every Crystal Palace defender out of the game in two passes.

This is another one of those situations where the word ‘level’ can clearly be applied. Anyone with two functioning eyes and half a brain to run them can see that. But VAR is never content with such common sense, and so the lines came out.

The commentator had the right of it, saying: “But VAR are playing their games here, and looking to see whether a beautifully crafted moment of footballing joy should be snuffed out by a piece of miserable geometry.”

After much effort (many lines were shifted many times) to prove the contrary, the VAR was forced to concede that Kane was onside. The goal stood.

If Lee Probert enjoys watching “decisions” like that every week, then he’s clearly one of those that Shanks warned us all about. A referee who understands the rules, but has no love for the game.