Chelsea’s controversial goal against Arsenal in Sunday’s Premier League summit meeting was checked and cleared by VAR despite fans spotting what they claimed was clear infringement.
The Blues made light of their numerical disadvantage, a consequence of Moises Caicedo’s red card challenge, at the second half and took the lead in the 48th minute.
There appeared to be little controversial about Chalobah’s near post header which looped up and over a stranded David Raya and evaded Cristhian Mosquera and Piero Hincapie who were stationed closer to the goalline.
Upon closer inspection, however, it appeared that Enzo Fernandez was standing in an offside position at the moment the Chelsea centre-half connected with Reece James’ perfectly flighted corner.
The presence of the Blues’ midfielder, it could have been argued, represented a distraction and prevented his opponents from making attempts to clear the ball from danger.
Your ultimate guide to the football season
Metro’s football newsletter: In The Mixer. Exclusive analysis, FPL tips and transfer talk sent straight to your inbox every Friday – sign up, it’s an open goal.
According to the BBC, however, the VAR did check the goal and deemed that Fernandez, despite following the trajectory of the ball and his close proximity to Mosquera, was not enough of a distraction to rule the goal out.
The nature of Chelsea’s goal was far from the only controversial moment of a heated London derby.
When can VAR deem a player to be offside?
Under the rules of IFAB (International Football Association Board), the game’s lawmakers, a player can be offside if they:
- Prevent an opponent from being able to play the ball
- Challenge an opponent for the ball
- Make an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.
Should Chelsea’s goal have been ruled out?
-
Yes – clear offside
-
No – the VAR got it spot on
While few would argue with the decision to overturn Anthony Taylor’s initial award of a yellow card for Caicedo’s foul on Mikel Merino, Chelsea felt aggrieved that Hincapie wasn’t given his marching orders shortly afterwards.
Challenging with Chalobah in an aerial duel, the Ecuador international caught the Chelsea centre-half on the side of the cheek and he was left with a swollen cheek.
Enzo Maresca was asked to comment on post-match quotes by his captain Reece James, who suggested Hincapie should have been shown a red for the challenge.
Maresca replied: ‘I think Reece is right. But they (officials) decide. I just said there, he asked me about Moises’ red card. It’s a red card, but why was Bentancur’s against Reece not a red card when we were at Spurs away? So us, as a manager, we struggle to understand why they judge in a different way.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web
browser that
supports HTML5
video
‘Moises’ is a red card, yes. Bentancur’s is a red card, yes. Why don’t they give him a red card? It’s just that we struggle to understand. The reality is that it’s a red card. But why do they judge it differently?
‘And the Trevoh one, I asked the referee, he said to me that it was not an elbow. So, this is what they said. (He had a) black eye, with ice at half-time. But they judge in different way.’
Former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher, however, maintained that a yellow card represented sufficient punishment and the damage done to Chalobah’s face should not have influenced the referee’s decision.
He said: ‘I think this is a yellow card. You have to be careful not to be seduced by looking at [Chalobah’s] cheek. You have to judge the challenge.
‘Hincapie has leapt and used his arm as leverage, he hasn’t swung his elbow or used it as a weapon.
‘It is a flailing arm and an unfortunate injury, but it is a reckless challenge, not a challenge where he has gone in to hurt him.’