What it shows is that VAR does not deal with fact for offsides. Unless you freeze at the precise moment the ball is touched for the pass, it never will. And that's just not possible until such a time they embedded sensors in either all platers boots or in the ball that can detect that, or use multiple cameras to computerised the process.If you watch the video of the VAR, the line based on Alexander-Arnold's shoulder should be moved to a more Spurs-favorable position - it does not account for his forward leaning position (his leading shoulder is closer to the goal than the line would suggest as he started running toward his goal).
I've noticed there is a tenancy to use a picture after the ball is played, i reckon working on the theory that if a player is onside a couple of frames later, then he probably was when the ball was played.
But VAR for offsides is best guess, not facts, and I wish they woukd keep saying it is .
Last night, because he was moving towards N'Dombele, and was still slightly offside after the ball had been played, I've no problem with that.
What I would like to know is why the dippers first goal didn't get that level of Forensic examination (he looked onside though, with the naked eye, even though it was tight), and Allison's 'handball' didnt.
And if they did, why didn't we know about it or see it.
For me, this is the biggest issue. For those watching, and especially those in the ground, the conversations on the refs mic should be available, so we can understand if decisions are being looked at or not, and why not. Or why they are