Imagine this: a thrilling Premier League match hangs in the balance, a controversial goal is scored, and the entire stadium holds its breath. Was it offside or not? This was the exact scenario when Florian Wirtz's equalizer for Liverpool against Fulham sparked heated debates. But here's where it gets controversial: despite replays suggesting Wirtz was offside, the goal stood after a VAR review. How did this happen? Let’s dive into the details and uncover the surprising reason behind this decision.
On a chaotic January afternoon, Liverpool’s manager Arne Slot watched his team battle to a 2-2 draw at Fulham, a result that seemed to encapsulate their season’s frustrations. With star striker Hugo Ekitike sidelined due to a muscle injury, Liverpool’s woes deepened when former player Harry Wilson opened the scoring in a first half where Slot’s side failed to test Fulham’s goalkeeper Bernd Leno. Yet, Liverpool equalized through Wirtz’s contentious goal and appeared to secure victory in stoppage time with Cody Gakpo’s strike. But in a dramatic twist, Fulham’s late substitute Harrison Reed scored a stunning 25-yard goal in the 97th minute, denying Liverpool the win.
“Losing that game would have been completely unfair to us,” Fulham manager Marco Silva remarked. While Liverpool extended their unbeaten streak to nine games, their underlying issues were once again exposed. “If you’re not part of Liverpool, you’d think we’d win it,” Slot reflected. “But the reality is, the opposition’s first chance often leads to a goal, and they score unexpected goals in extra time. Is this surprising anymore?”
What did surprise many at Craven Cottage was the VAR confirmation of Wirtz’s equalizer, despite replays indicating he was offside. “I was sure it was offside, so I didn’t celebrate,” Wirtz admitted to Sky Sports. Silva echoed this sentiment: “It looked offside, but we must trust the semi-automated technology.”
And this is the part most people miss: Wirtz was offside—but only marginally. So, why was his goal allowed? In the early days of VAR, offside decisions were often confusing, with lines drawn to attackers and defenders overlapping. Critics argued this contradicted the spirit of the offside rule. To address this, a 5cm tolerance level was introduced from the 2021-22 season, giving players the benefit of the doubt if lines touched. This accounted for technological inaccuracies, such as determining the exact moment the ball was passed.
With the advent of semi-automated offside technology (SAOT), other leagues reverted to millimeter-precise decisions. However, the Premier League retained the tolerance level to favor attackers, acknowledging that even SAOT isn’t infallible. This is why Wirtz’s goal stood—he was offside by a hair, but the technology gave him the benefit of the doubt.
Wirtz’s goal came after Liverpool adopted a more direct approach in the second half, with Conor Bradley driving at Fulham’s defense and setting up the German midfielder. “I’d love to create more chances, but with our midfield setup and Fulham’s 5-4-1 formation, it’s challenging,” Slot explained. “We did enough to win, limiting them to one half-chance, but the result remains.”
Slot insisted his principles haven’t changed despite Liverpool’s recent struggles. “I haven’t altered my approach. I’d love to play with eight attackers if it were defensively feasible, but without sufficient defensive effort, winning becomes difficult,” he said. “My philosophy remains unchanged, but we must work with the players available.”
Slot also clarified his decision to bench Ekitike, who traveled to London but was dealing with Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness (DOMS). With Alexander Isak already injured, Slot couldn’t risk further complications. As Liverpool prepare to face league leaders Arsenal, they’re hoping Ekitike returns to provide a much-needed focal point against the Premier League’s best defense.
But here’s the question: Is the 5cm tolerance level fair, or does it undermine the integrity of the offside rule? Should technology always have the final say, or is there room for human judgment? Let us know your thoughts in the comments—this debate is far from over!
